from inhabitants of Touws River for legislation providing for Direct Popular Vote.

from C. H. Bamford, T. E. Picknell, and W. Weatherhead, railway clerks, for leave to contribute arrears to pension funds.

, from inhabitants of the Cape Peninsula, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote (seven petitions).

similar petitions from inhabitants of Somerset West and Oudtshoorn (two petitions).

a similar petition from inhabitants of Stellenbosch.

(for Sir David P. de Villiers Graaff), from W. J. du Toit, teacher, for condonation of a break in his service.

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

Papers relating to land grants (61 and 62).

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Governmen Notice No. 769 of 1914 having reference to the appointment of James Lil— burn as member of Land Board (Natal).

said that he had listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Ministers and members on the Estimates. He was not one of those members who was privileged to investigate the public accounts and therefore he was one of those who had to look to those members for warnings as to the annual expenditure. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been talking about the terrible extravagance of the Government, but he (Mr. Watermeyer) had been waiting to see whether hon. members on the other side of the House would put their fingers on any item of extravagance. He thought the Minister of Finance ought to be congratulated by the House on his statement. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had mentioned the enormous amount that was paid in salaries. He (Mr. Watermeyer) agreed that the amount was amazing, but it was one of the evils they had inherited since Union—other evils were the Transvaal’s “swelled head,” Natal’s distrust, and the Free State’s racialism. But he did not despair on account of these evils, because they were disappearing fast. He hoped the enormous expenditure on salaries would only last for a time and would also disappear. It had been pointed out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, that their expenditure since Union had gone up by four and a half millions, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had emphasised that their expenditure had decreased by that amount of four and a half millions from 1904 to 1910, so that now it had returned to the normal condition.

Hon. members had held it up as an argument that a great incentive to Union was that great economy of administration which would result, He did not think that the sordid view of £ s. d. weighed with most people when they decided to join Union, but what they had all said, and what they had all felt, was that they had four different colonies, which had people of the same blood and of the same stock, drifting away into different communities, each one jealous of the other, and drifting apart; and, in fact, forming another nationality; and everyone had felt that it was in the interests of the born inhabitants of the country that they should come together. At all events, he knew that that was the feeling with which he had approached the matter, and of the people with whom he had been most in contact. He agreed that their expenditure was very high, but he could not say that that expenditure need frighten them. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said that they were over-governed in this country and that they had one Civil Servant to every six of the European population. He did not agree with that statement at all, but taking the statement as it had been made, they had in this country, with its enormous area and the enormous distances which they had to cover, one man who was practically governing them, and doing every blessed thing for them, to six of the European population. Even on that basis he did not think there was much to complain about. But they must not forget the huge native areas which they had to govern, and they had their staff, not only to govern these people, but to keep them in order. (Hear, hear.) They knew that it was useless to talk of reducing their Civil Service establishment which they had inherited from Union, and they had to keep it. Hon. members must agree that the enormous expansion which the country had made must mean increased expenditure, and there was no getting away from that fact. He would be very sorry to see the country coming back to the position in which it had been some years ago during the time of depression, when they could not get a policeman in their district who was required. He did not think the worst enemy of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), would accuse him of having thrown money away wilfully and wantonly when he was Treasurer of the Cape Colony, although at that time they had had an expenditure of 4½ millions greater than in 1908 He did agree that they ought to keep a very watchful eye on the expenditure. If they got slack as to the mode in which they spent their money they knew what was going to happen, because they in the Cape had been through the mill before, and did not like to repeat that experience. There were several items of expenditure which did look to one as if they might be more usefully spent. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the printing item could be cut down considerably. (Hear, hear.) It was a terrible waste of money printing everything in the dual language, and he hoped that discretion would be used, so that every hon. member or person who wanted it in the proper language could get it in that language, but let them not overdo it. Why not let each man get the documents in the language he desired only. (Hear, bear.) He thought that the money could be better spent on education than throwing it away in the waste paper basket like that. (Hear, hear.) As to the expansion of the country, were they going to sit down for fear of their wages bill and expenditure increasing, and say that they were going to sit still for fear of that? That argument did not appeal to him, and he thought that they were spending money in the right direction; that the money spent had been necessarily spent, and that it would be absolutely foolish if they were to stop the progress which was going on for a nervous fear of supplying funds which they required for the purpose of development. The Minister of Finance had shown that by the reduction of the railway rates and the remission of other taxation they had benefited to the extent of £2,000,000, and that the expenditure on education had increased by 1¼ millions. During the last three years they had bettered the balance in their favour (of exports versus imports) to the extent of 77½ millions, which was the balance of trade to their credit. Of that 77½ millions, 35 millions was due to produce otherwise than that due to the mines. What produce was not represented in the other 42 millions which stood to the credit of the production of the mines? That amount of mineral produce was exported, but it was coming back in another form, in the way of cash to pay for South African produce which had been used, so that if they came to look at the way in which their production had been increasing, he simply asked whether they would be wise now to go and curtail their Estimates and stop development? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had remarked the other day that they were going on a policy of extravagance, and that the warnings against that had been justified by the position in which the Minister of Finance found himself. Was the great terror which the hon. member attempted to hold over them by the figures of such “extravagance ” fairly justified by the position in which they found themselves? He supposed it was one of the sticks with which the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) shied at the hare,” although he never intended to hit it. He did not think they could go in for better development than by spending their money on education and defence. He had always held, and he still held, that the doctrine that they should keep a close eye on their expenditure and tax in times of prosperity was a sound one. He did not say that they ought to tax so that they could waste money, but if they did tax in times of prosperity, they should devote part of the money to the reduction of their debt charges, so that in times of acute depression they could reduce expenditure, and in the lean years borrow, if necessary.

He thought that for a growing country like South Africa this was a sound policy to pursue. A man would be better able to pay a £3 tax in times of prosperity than a 10s. tax in times of depression. He could not agree with the Minister using the bewaarplaatsen money and other surpluses for general expenditure, and he thought that this money should be replaced, and only used for the payment of debt. He could not agree with hon. members who said that these warnings of extravagance were justified in the position in which they found themselves. He welcomed the fact that the Minister had taken his courage in both hands and come to the House and taxed, instead of going in for a niggardly policy of cutting down the Estimates, and thereby checking the development of the country. He did not agree with the income tax or land tax proposals of the Minister, and he only partly agreed with his Customs tariff proposals. He did not agree with the land tax proposals, because he thought the Minister would not achieve the object he wished to achieve. The Minister was actually going to hit the man who was beneficially occupying the land. He drew attention to the case of the Zak River Estates Company, in the district of Calvinia. This large company, with an enormous capital, had come in, and were working 35,000 morgen of arable land, and he knew that at present they were employing about 300 people, of whom about one-third were white, and not poor whites, but young farmers. This company was beneficially occupying the land. They were doing what it was impossible for the small man to do. Instead of the ground being farmed in a haphazard fashion, they were farming in a systematic manner. How was the tax going to work? Altogether the company had 102,000 morgen. Now the company was benefiting the district to a great extent, and when the railway came, he was sure they would be able to benefit South Africa. They were producing wheat to such an extent that last year and the year before there was no scarcity in the district, though they had to contend with drought. That 35,000 morgen, as it lay, was worth, say, £350,000. They had 75,000 morgen of pastoral land attached to it, which he would put at 5s. What was going to happen? The Government would tax them on 92,000 morgen, and make them pay a tax on £365,000. Was that fair?

What about the railway?

The railway is not there yet, but that is not the question. The question is: Are you going to smother the beneficial occupation and the beneficial exploitation of land by taxing the man who is able to put the capital in? Continuing, he said that if a company locked up the land, he would be the last man to defend them. This company was employing 100 white men and about 200 coloured men, and he believed that the staff was going to be doubled. Then take the case of a man who had a homestead farm, and his farm, perhaps, was worth £10,000. He farmed sheep on 30,000 pastoral land besides, because that was the only thing that could be done with the land, and at certain seasons he had to trek with his sheep. That land was worth perhaps 5s. a morgen. That man was beneficially occupying the land for the only purpose for which it could be used, it was added to his small valuable homestead and he was going to be taxed. He came to the conclusion that the tax was not going to hit the man who locked up the land. There was a little dash of protection about the Customs proposals that he liked, and he hoped it would lead to the encouragement of industries in this country. He was surprised, in looking through the returns, to find that the whaling companies, between 1909 and 1913, carried away whale produce to the amount of £537,000. What did we get for that? His objection was that they carried away whale residue, which we required as fertiliser, to the value of £63,000. Here we were crying out for fertilisers, and the best fertiliser was being taken away.

You can buy it, the same as anybody else.

said that the fact remained that this was being exported from South Africa. We wanted some protection, and he thought this was a matter into which the Minister might look. He could not agree with the mournful speeches made by some hon. members, because he felt that their position was so sound that they could look forward to the prophesied signs of depression with equanimity. He pointed out that the produce of South Africa had increased by two millions in value in 1912, and by one million in 1913. He agreed that the mining revenue would be a diminishing asset, but he thought that the increasing amount of South African produce would be a compensation. He might be an optimist, but he had faith in this country, and if the gold mines gave out, the people concerned, who were large consumers, would have turned to other occupations by that time and he did not think there would be any decrease, but rather an increase, in consumption.

rising, said he desired to explain that he had said distinctly that, in connection with the poor white settlement which the Dutch Reformed Church had established at Kenhardt it would be well, after these people had rehabilitated themselves, if the Government assisted them—people who were accustomed to the conditions in that area—by giving them land in the North-west, for they were the only people who could possibly develop it. He had never said it was at all suitable for settlement. At the same time he thought he had made it clear that if they were to have any success in their settlement schemes they must put people near the railways and not in the very remote parts of the country.

said that the man who had been in an establishment like that for two or three years was not the man who should be put upon that land. You cannot make a pastoralist of an agriculturist and vice versa. The man who should be put upon that land was a man with a fair amount of capital. They would never do any good by putting the small man on those lands. He quite agreed with those who said that they should throw open these lands as soon as possible, but the Government was not going to do any good by putting the small man upon them. The hon. member went on to say that he welcomed the conversion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, who had at last found out that the prosperity of the country depended upon the land.

I have always thought so.

said that he believed the hon. member was very earnest in his idea that closer settlement was absolutely necessary for South Africa. He agreed with the hon. member in that view. He wanted as many white people as he could get into this country, but we wanted the right class of men. The hon. member had complained that when an organisation he was connected with took the trouble to advertise the South-west, they discovered, on making inquiries, that they could not get any land. The explanation was very simple. The men who were on the land were occupying it in the same way as the hon. member occupied his own business. He would have a portion of his business that he could not develop immediately but he did not for that reason propose to sell it. The people who were on the land and had large families had to have some regard for the possible requirements of their children in the future. In this matter of closer settlement attention must be paid to the conditions peculiar to South Africa, and it was no use girding at people because they went rather slowly compared with other countries, in which the conditions were not the same. Few men who had talked about closer settlement knew what it was to develop the land.

They are honest people there.

They are not so honest, that is the drawback. One man, he added, left the district because there were not enough police in it to put down crime. The condition of affairs led to worse than crime—it led to crime being covered up. Liquor smuggling and stock thieving went on, and everything was hushed up because people were afraid of having to attend the Circuit Court as witnesses. Then the people of Brandvlei desired telegraphic communication, the nearest telegraph office being 100 miles away.

What is the population?

That has nothing to do with it. (Laughter.) The population varies, it being nomadic. Continuing, he said that people were so shut off from the rest of the country that there was no development. Postal communication was so slow that people preferred to have their letters carried by private individuals, who made it a point of honour to pass the letters from hand to hand until they reached their destination. In conclusion, Mr. Watermeyer stated that the Deeds Office in Cape Town was so terribly undermanned that it took three weeks or a month before one could get a diagram submitted for transfer purposes examined. This was a hardship on people who desired to sell portions of their farms or subdivide to raise mortgages on them. Then the Deeds Office fees were too heavy, and he did not think the Act contemplated that the Deeds Office should be a taxing machine. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage, he (Mr. Watermeyer) did not think it should be supported in any way. The Government was responsible for the financial condition of the country, but if they were to have a committee to tell the Government how it was to tax or spend money we might as well do without Responsible Government altogether. (Hear, hear.)

said that now that the great financial guns on the front benches had fired off their volleys at the Minister of Finance, perhaps a humble rifleman on the back benches might have a look in. (Hear, hear.) There was no doubt that the expenditure was increasing very rapidly; some said that it was going up at the rate of £500,000 per annum. The number of Government servants was also increasing every year. He thought the time had arrived when they should look into that matter and see whether it would not be possible to call a halt now. They were promised at the time of Union that the expenditure would be reduced as the result of Union. He thought it would be generally admitted that that had not been done. The expenditure was now higher than it had ever been before. Even the Government members were taking more interest in the Estimates than they had ever done. (Laughter.) It was only right that they should do so, because they were largely responsible for the position to-day. They had had many opportunities of voting for reductions on certain Estimates—they had had that opportunity year after year, but had always refused to take advantage of those opportunities. They were evidently now beginning to realise that they must; set about that business. They would still have opportunities this year of dealing with the matter and of showing whether they desired to reduce expenditure. They would have opportunities of voting for the various amendments which had been proposed. The Minister of Finance had himself said that they should establish economy before they introduced fresh taxation. Therefore he (the Minister) should not be surprised if the House took him at his word. If taxation were brought in now on the basis of the expenditure which was foreshadowed it would be difficult, if not impossible to reduce expenditure or taxation in future. He did not believe that an income tax was the sort of tax that should be brought in unless it were absolutely necessary. The original idea of an income tax was that it should only be imposed in times of war or in certain other eventualities. He thought that anyone who had an income at all should come under the tax. He thought that if they were to impose the tax they should impose it on incomes over £200 a year, but that they might impose a very low rate and increase the rate more rapidly on incomes over £2,000 per annum. Under the present taxation proposals there would be very few voters in the country who would be taxed—who would have to pay at all—and, therefore, those who did pay would have very little say in regard to the expenditure of the country. With regard to Customs duties, he thought the proposed tariff would be considered reasonable by the majority of the people, though, of course, a number would be disappointed. He was disposed to agree with the Minister that what the Government should do now was to go slow. The Minister had said that the cost of living was such that no Government in South Africa should take any steps which would be likely to increase the cost of living. Therefore he had been astonished to hear the Minister suggest that there should be increased duties on foodstuffs—for instance, butter, cheese, cocoa, coffee, etc. He would like to know the object of putting an additional tax on imported tea. There had already been a tax of 4d. per lb., and if it was thought that an additional tax would protect the tea industry, he was sure it would not have that effect. The tea industry in Natal was a dying industry. If the object was to build up another industry, he did not think that any such industry would be of benefit to the country. He had very little to say with regard to the land tax. It did not affect him personally. But if it did, he did not think that he would object to the very mild, not to say timid, proposal of the Minister. That tax would not do a great deal in the way of establishing closer settlement in South Africa.

Continuing, Mr. Henderson said that that year they had had an additional importation of foodstuffs, amounting to one million more than in 1912. Even if the prophecy made last year by the Minister of Finance had come true, he would have been in a rather awkward position, in not receiving the revenue from Customs duties on foodstuffs which he had received. The hon. member proceeded to ask what had been the result of sending Mr. Moffat to Europe and America to study statistics? He presumed that the object of that gentleman’s study was to establish a Bureau of Statistics in this country, which was badly needed, and there was no doubt that this country’s position was a disgrace, as far as statistics were concerned, and should not continue for another year. (Hear, hear.)

It must have been carried more than once.

said that that was probably the explanation. It was the same with tea. It was stated that 2,803 tons of South African tea were carried over the railways in 1913, but he found that the total quantity grown was 844 tons. Continuing, he said that the Minister in his speech and the Railway Board in its report had stated that Natal under the Mozambique agreement was getting too much of the traffic and had taken traffic away from the Cape. Under this agreement Natal had to get 30 per cent. not only for a few months or years, but during the run of the agreement from beginning to end. Taking the Minister’s figures he found that up to the end of 1913 Natal only got 27.74 per cent. of the traffic, while Delagoa Bay got 59.51 per cent., and therefore Natal did not get its fair share. Before the Government altered the rates it should see that Natal got its fair share. It was an iniquitous agreement that forced half the trade to the competitive area of the Union, through a foreign port, and they were tied up for six years more. Government should see that it worked as little to the disadvantage of the Union ports as possible, and see that Delagoa Bay did not get more than its fair share. Dealing with the amendments, he said that the Labour amendment, of course, was not intended to be taken seriously, and was only meant for consumption in certain quarters. His objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage was that it would take away from the Government the responsibility of the Budget and the finances of the Union, and he did not think the House would agree to that. The Government must be responsible for its finances and must stand or fall by its Budget. It was those who were behind the Government that were backing up the Government in this unnecessary expenditure; it was they who were responsible for bringing in taxation at this time; it was they who would have to explain to their constituents why taxation was necessary at this time, and they who would have to justify their actions to their constituents. (Cheers.) *

said that in reply to the hon. member who had just sat down (Mr. Henderson), he would say that those behind the Government would take the responsibility of the actions of the Government. In the early days of the Transvaal he had pointed out that it was necessary for them to earmark the profit tax from the diamond and gold mines for the purpose of developing the country. Unfortunately that principle had been neglected, and now they heard murmurs from all sides of the House that the revenue from this source should not be appropriated for the purpose of meeting ordinary expenditure. (Hear, hear.) He thought it was time that the Government took into consideration the question of earmarking a portion of the revenue derived from the profits tax for the purpose of developing the country in other directions. The only way of developing the country, in his opinion, was by the establishment of large conservation schemes and bringing under cultivation large areas of land that were not being used at the present time. It was quite easy to do it, but in order to be successful they would have to take the matter into serious consideration without delay. Unless they took action on these lines he was afraid that they would soon be looking about for fresh sources of revenue. There were numerous avenues for development. For instance, the Minister of Railways was continually crying out that he could not get material for his rolling-stock, carriages, rails, etc. Orders to the tune of two millions had been sent oversea every year. Was it not time (the hon. member asked) when we in this country should look round and see whether it was not possible to produce these things here? He mentioned one part of the country where iron ores were obtainable, and said that within eighteen months or two years anybody who wanted to do it could be turning out rails and sleepers. In the Pretoria district they had coal and iron within an area of about 50 miles, but year after year we went on, and the only idea was that we must import everything into South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

There is a duty on cement now.

How much?

A very stiff one.

About 10 per cent.

More than 10 per cent.

If you put a duty on cement to-morrow, you can go to a good English firm and arrange a contract, and they will supply that cement locally at less than local cost.

Cement is paying 40 per cent. That is a fair amount.

No, it is not. That is the idea that I wish to counteract, and I say it is a wrong idea. Forty per cent. is not sufficient to induce the English manufacturer to come and start that industry. There are many people in the Old Country to-day who are willing to come here and start that industry on those lines. If the duty is not sufficient, the taxpayer is going to pay it, and he will keep on paying it until the duty is raised, and you will never produce anything in South Africa.

You say in your own report that the duty on cement is quite sufficient.

I suppose I may change my mind?

The ink is hardly dry yet.

said that he wished to go into the question of railway rates as affecting these industries. In the report of the Industries Commission it was laid down that the railway preferential rates should be abolished, and that any protection that was given should take the form of an equivalent from the Customs. There had been a great deal of abuse in connection with the preferential rates, and the man whom it was thought to benefit never received that benefit. Let them take wheat. Wheat was grown herein the Cape, very largely in the Malmesbury district, and the inland consumer was supposed to get it at the cheap preferential rate. The farmers who gave evidence before the Commission said they would rather have a tax at the coast, and then they would know where they were. The farmer had to be satisfied with the preferential railway rates, but his contention was that his rate or price for his wheat was regulated by the imported wheat at the coast.

Plus the preference he gets from the railway.

Plus the duty only. The price to the consumer in Johannesburg is the price of the imported wheat, the dear price on the railway. You are not told that you can have this preferential rate on flour The position is that the consumer has to pay the high price of the imported wheat. Proceeding, the hon. member said that neither the farmer to his mind, nor the consumer, was benefited by this preferential railway rate. There was another point. The millers here had got all the trade, and they sent flour inland. The economic condition was that meal should be ground at Port Elizabeth and then sent inland, because, under the present system, 300 miles of railway service was done for nothing. From Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein was distant 450 miles and Johannesburg 750 miles, while from Cape Town, Bloemfontein was distant 750 miles and Johannesburg 1,100. Bloemfontein was 300 miles nearer to Port Elizabeth than it was to Cape Town, yet trade was taken away from Port Elizabeth by Cape Town because of the preferential railway rates, the whole of the business being done by the millers here. Rather let them compensate the millers than continue the noneconomic condition we had to-day. It the railway rates were properly adjusted Cape Town would be consuming the wheat grown in its own neighbourhood which did not produce more than was necessary for the consumption of the Cape district. The same principle was manifested in regard to Natal sugar, which had a preferential rate on the railway, with the result that imported sugar was consumed in Natal, and the Natal sugar was sent inland, the consequence being that the railway suffered, the South African product being carried at a lower rate than that charged for the imported article. We appeared to be sending inland 214,000 tons of Natal sugar, as against only 6,000 tons of imported sugar, and he wished to query these figures, as he queried those regarding wheat. The railways seemed to be carrying far too much flour inland at the preferential rates. As to the preferential rates on coal, 14s. a ton was charged for conveying coal 1,000 miles to Cape Town. Well, on the Cape railways there was a loss of £391,355, against profits made by the following: Free State, £238,278; Johannesburg division, £930,000; Pretoria division, £416,000; Natal, £444,000; bringing the total profits on the railway up to £2,025,000.

emphasised the importance of the mining industry, which he said was the greatest industry in South Africa, and one which certain hon. members had been inclined to decry. They had been frightened by the statement placed before the Economic Commission by the Chamber of Mines. He (Mr. Nathan) thought they had rather misread that statement, because it would appear that within five years the production had been brought down very considerably, and in the year 1930 the gold-mining productions would be brought down to half their present state; but sight had been lost of the statement made by the mining engineer (Mr. Kotzee), who had said over and over again that dormant and undeveloped payable ore existed to as great an extent as in the existing mines. But it would cost £50,000,000 sterling. What had been done to encourage capital to come into the country? They had been frightening capital out of the country, rather than encouraging people to bring their capital in. Such capital as had been brought into the country had been practically taxed out of existence, and consequently prospecting for new areas, he might say, had absolutely ceased for the time being. The Government had also largely hindered the mining industry by the enormous amount which it had exacted from the small mining investors. The Government had made an initial error, and it was one which was unfortunately encouraged by certain hon. members in that House, namely, taxing effort and capital, instead of taxing productions. Again, what had the Government done to throw new fields open to prospectors? It would be very much better if it were possible to prospect on farms, provided security was given that there would be no damage, and also that when the farms were left, they would not be in an insecure or dangerous condition. He thought that would be sufficient protection for the farmers, but nothing whatever had been done. Proceeding, he said that the Gold Law required very careful amendment. The last law passed was in the Transvaal in 1908, and since Union they found it necessary that there should be many alterations in that law. In the first place, he would urge the Government not to continue to exact the large amount which was exacted from people who pegged out claims. It was a most iniquitous form of taxation—the worst form of taxation. It was up to the Government to foster that marvellous industry which had been poured into the lap of this country. Other industries, as well as the gold industry, but the gold industry in particular. He himself had lost considerably in claim licences. He had paid between three and four thousand pounds. He had gained experience; he was poorer for it, but had to pay a less income tax. It had been urged in connection with the amount of money taken from the mines that a large portion of that should be put into the permanent interests of the country; that was being done already. Where did those large amounts come from that was being paid to agricultural schools and for other purposes? Did not they come out of that amount? It was up to that House and up to the Government to do all it could to foster the mining industry, because it was the best they had got in the country. If they did not, it would be the old story of killing the goose which laid the golden egg. They would frighten capital out of the country, and they, would have the failure of their loans in the loan market. He would admit that agriculture should be the backbone of the country, and no doubt the farmers would admit that the Transvaal and Johannesburg market was the market upon which they principally depended. Upon the success of Johannesburg depended largely the price they would obtain for their commodities. The success of the Union was largely due to what was brought in from the North. The people of the North were complaining that they could not purchase cheaper. Meat, for instance, was just as dear as in 1912, despite the fact that live-stock had been taken up at a saving of £72,000 to the livestock farmers.

I never said anything of the sort.

The inference was that the ground was too far away for his friends to bend down to it.

I did not say that. I never made that statement.

If the Minister is ashamed of his statement I am prepared to make it now. (Laughter.) Proceeding, Mr. Nathan said that they had been importing more eggs into South Africa than they had been exporting. Instead of importing eggs they should be exporting them. Surely the time had arrived when eggs should be exported instead of imported. He pointed out that they were importing fresh vegetables to the extent of £55,000 and were exporting to the extent of £26,000. (Laughter.) Perhaps the hon. member for Oudtshoorn would tell them to what extent they produced vegetables in the Oudtshoorn district. He (Mr. Nathan) was in Oudtshoorn last year, and was informed that vegetables were brought from Uitenhage, Port Elizabeth, and other places. (Laughter.) The time had arrived when they should produce those articles in this country. There had been a little “dash” of protection in the proposals for fresh taxation which had been made by the Minister of Finance. He doubted whether any protective tariff would bring about encouragement to the industries of the country. What would produce that effect would be hard work and industry. There was not sufficient hard work and backbone put into the country. (Laughter.) A sum expended on the mining industry during 25 years had been only £8,000,000—only a little more than the capital invested. He would like the Minister to lay on the Table the total amount expended on the goldfields alone. He thought he had now said sufficient about the mines to wake up that House and to wake up the country. (Ministerial cheers and laughter.) What was the outlook they had now? It was again additional taxation. The hon. member for Durban (Mr. Henderson) had sufficiently dealt with the question of the Government’s shortcomings in regard to extravagance. (Laughter.)

The late Mr. Sauer had stated, when he had spoken in Johannesburg, that if Union had not achieved considerable saving, it had not achieved its object, and others had said the same thing. In fact, it had been commonly stated at the time, and had not been attributed only to the late hon. gentleman. Despite all the warnings which had been given by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips), that the Government were riding for the rocks, the Government heeded not. The Government had brought that country into a muddle, and on their shoulders rested the responsibility, and not on those of the Opposition. (Ministerial laughter.) They found the staff of the Civil Service abnormally high, and far greater than the requirements of the country needed. He did not want to say a word against the Civil Servants, but it was the Government who had brought the present position on themselves. He did not want to offend anybody, but there were too many friends knocking at the door for situations, applications for higher pensions and the like. Then, again, people had been retrenched who should not have been retrenched, because they had years of labour before them, and were now drawing pensions, while others had been taken on in their stead. As to the Union buildings at Pretoria, he had always supported the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), and he said it was a white elephant and a disgrace to the country. (Ironical Ministerial cheers.) With reference to defence, the increase in the expenditure was alarming, the figures being: 1910-11, £262,592; 1911-12, £540,699; 1913-14, £1,345,031 (with a supplementary estimate of £177,000), and 1914-15, £1,394,300 The revenue and the population of the country should not warrant that extraordinary expenditure, and if that money had been used in productive works, or even in irrigation works, the country would have benefited by it more. He contended that in that branch of the service the country was not getting value for the money. The administrative expenses were nearly £10,000 more, headquarters nearly £30,000 more, military schools £8,000 more, medical officers £9,000 more, and so it went on. Where was it going to end? (Ministerial laughter.) Was the Defence Force going to keep Russia or Japan in check if they ever came? In that case they would have to depend on the British Navy. The Defence Force was top heavy, and they were building from the top instead of from the bottom. The only salvation for the country was to deal with the country as they would deal with an insolvent. Let them put the Government out and put the Unionist Party in. (Ministerial laughter.) But God save the country from the Labour Party! Did they know that in Johannesburg a man who came there and had been there for three months could get a vote and have a say in the affairs of the country, without possessing any property.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken seemed to be under the delusion that the agriculturist did not work at all.

I did not say so.

Well, the hon. member said that the agriculturist did not put his back into his work, and it does seem to me that it is a libel on the agriculturist that it should be suggested to him that he does not put his back into his work. Not only was that sort of thing said, the hon. member continued, but the farmers had to escape from all the advice which the legal members tried to give them. (Laughter.) As to what the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan) had said, that he would take the responsibility of the Budget on him, that was rather a large contract. He feared that when there was a deficit, the statement that the hon. member was prepared to take the responsibility of the Budget on him would be very little assistance to them in meeting that deficit. The hon. member for Clanwilliam (Mr. Watermeyer) had been rather unkind to his leader in his remarks on land settlement, because the Prime Minister had said that the only hope of that country was in land settlement, and the hon. member had criticised some of the suggestions of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Sir T. W. Smartt) as wild cat schemes. Continuing, he said he would like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Caledon. The hon. member might be called the Caledonian or at least the Hibernian supporter of the Government, and if the hon. member only spoke more they would be able to add to their exports by an increase in the export of bulls. (Laughter.) In reference to those remarks, he said that he (Mr. Fichardt) and his friends were going to satisfy themselves as to what party they belonged. The Prime Minister said that they at the Bloemfontein Conference formed a Labour Party, but his (the Prime Minister’s) own newspaper said that they had drawn up a programme very like the programme of the Prime Minister. They would support the legitimate aspirations of labour, but they had never subscribed, did not now subscribe, and would not subscribe in the future to any revolutionary or Socialistic doctrines. Because they had proposed an amendment that the Estimates should be sent to a Budget Committee they were told that they were following on the lines of the Labour Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council. Of course, what the latter had done was to appoint a Recessional Committee which would exercise the functions of Government. He was tempted to speak on the Budget owing to the speech made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister not only tried to teach finance to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, the right hon. the member for Victoria West, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. Central, but to the hon. member for Barberton, whom he attacked and towards whom he used most unbecoming language. This language was used by the leader of Parliament, and the Prime Minister, who had lectured to them on Parliamentary expressions in the past. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not there, because he always enjoyed his (Mr. Fichardt’s) speeches. The truth of the matter was that all the trouble to-day and the stagnation in the country arose from this disposition of the Prime Minister to kick away the rungs of the ladder upon which he had climbed to his present position. The Prime Minister had a great deal to say about natives and native taxation, and he propounded a most immoral doctrine, and that was that they must not attempt to tax the natives or they might go to war. He thought that the most extraordinary and immoral doctrine he had ever heard, and it was a deliberate incentive to violence. The Prime Minister then went on to entirely misrepresent the state of affairs with regard to native taxation. The hon. member for Barberton, when he spoke, referred to Union taxation. The Prime Minister represented that there were other taxes paid by the Cape natives and kept away from the fact that the pass law in the Transvaal and the O.F.S. produced nearly half a million. Mr. Fichardt referred to the heavy municipal and other taxation in the Free State, and said that the native there paid about 10 per cent. on the average salary in taxation. Then on the subject of natives the Prime Minister made a most extraordinary statement. He said that if they deviated at present from the policy they had followed they would create a state of unrest in the native mind, which would have nothing but disastrous consequences. This at a time when they were considering the whole question of initiating a national policy in South Africa in regard to natives was a distinct incentive to the natives, should any suggestion be made to co-ordinate the laws. The Prime Minister had said that the members of Parliament in the Transvaal would go back and call the natives in their constituencies together to tell them what had been done. That seemed to him (Mr. Fichardt) to be deliberately inventing a grievance for the natives.

Was that in the Free State?

Yes. Proceeding, he said they in the Free State had appreciated the way in which the Minister of Agriculture had tried to meet them, but he could not say anything so satisfactory about the Minister of Lands. He did not think that the taxation proposals were necessary at the present time. The income tax was particularly vexatious. There were many people in this country who kept no books, and it would be very difficult to arrive at the various trade charges. He wondered if a farmer’s cart would be considered a trade charge, and if so, would a motor-car owned by a merchant be considered as one also? The hon. member quoted other instances of difficulty in arriving at the revenue of the farmers, and said that the whole scheme bristled with difficulties. The income tax would lead to a great deal of misrepresentation; he agreed with Mark Twain, who said the income tax was the most prolific source of lying he ever came across. Then there was the land tax. Upon whom was that tax going to fall? The men who were developing the country were going to be taxed. Those proposals were unhappily so new to this country that they should not be exposed to the country until the people had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions regarding them.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, said that in the remarks he had made about Civil Servants he wished it to be understood that he recognised there were departments in which the members of the service were very much overworked, which was another proof of a lack of organisation. If taxation were necessary he preferred one of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull). The hon. member had suggested an estate duty, and he (Mr. Fichardt) would prefer that to an income tax. An estate worth £20,000 in the Free State would bring in to the ordinary farmer about £2,000 a year. On the income tax basis he would probably pay about £25 a year, and taking the average number of years a man would contribute income tax at forty altogether such a man would pay £1,000 in income tax, and if compound interest were added the payment would be considerably more. But under the proposal of the hon. member for Barberton, he would only pay £600. An income tax would be vexatious and inquisitive, would cause a great deal of trouble, and would fall mostly on the salaried and honest man.

He very strongly favoured the whole Budget being sent to a Select Committee, which would be able to adjust matters, so as to avoid taxation. It was not a question of who was responsible, but of how they should best manage the affairs of the country. (Cheers.) A Budget Committee was not a new departure so far as the Union was concerned, and there used to be a similar committee in the old Free State Volksraad. He did not say that a committee would be able to do more than the Government had done, but if it were appointed hon. members would be able to tell their constituents that they had done all that was possible to prevent the imposition of fresh taxation. This was a time of prosperity, and if we had to introduce drastic taxation now Heaven help us when we found ourselves in a period of depression. (Cheers.) In spite of what the Prime Minister had said, he (Mr. Fichardt) could not help thinking that the financial experts in this House had not spoken without consideration and reflection. They might be wrong, but the statements they had made were worthy of consideration. (Hear, hear.)

said they always waited with a certain amount of curiosity to hear what the hon. member for Ladybrand had to say. The hon. member was at times so friendly, and at other times could so pleasantly stab his friends in the back, that they always expected something good from him. When he had a point to make he was skilled in mockery of his own people, but did it in a language which was not theirs. To-day he had been even more bitter than they could have expected, and he had taken up the cudgels for the hon. member for Barberton. The hon. member for Barberton had been so badly hit, it appeared, that the hon. member for Ladybrand had felt himself called upon to try to repair the damage, and had even gone so far as to show himself an open enemy of the Government and of the people amongst whom he sat. He had even called the members of the Government Party a “ja-broer commando” (an army of sycophants). On a former occasion he had been good enough to explain how that commando of ja-broers acted in the caucus. He also told them that he liked to attack the Prime Minister because he was so great. But why always at the heels? The hon. member was always talking about a commando. But what did he know about a commando? The same hon. member had formerly amused them a good deal with his articles under the pen-name “Blikoor,” which the speaker hoped would soon reappear.

If the hon. member for Ladybrand was as completely wrong in other things as he was in his financial policy, then his condition was hopeless. The hon. member had told them that he had no time to consult the natives on the native question. Of course that could be well understood, as the hon. member wanted so much time to devote to addressing public meetings in the constituencies of other hon. members. Amongst other remarks made by the hon. member was one to the effect that there had not been sufficient economy in the public service. Now they all felt that in the State service there should be no extravagance, and the speaker shared the feeling that the Government should see as far as they possibly could that due economy was observed. In his own constituency he had observed that attempts had been made to secure proper economy of administration, and with good results. For instance, in the Department of Justice, work had been taken over which belonged to the Department of Native Affairs, and it worked very well. It was easy for the hon. member for Yon Brandis to wash his hands in innocence, and to say that the Opposition were not responsible for the State service, but the speaker still remembered very well what had taken place during the first session of the Union Parliament. When the Government had tried to introduce economies in the public service, they were furiously attacked by members of the Opposition, and every dismissal of an official was made the subject of a debate in the House. And the same thing had been done year after year. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had alleged that some 1,168 officials had been retrenched, and it was no wonder after what had taken place that the Government preferred to retain them rather than to dispense with their services. It was impossible, therefore, for the Opposition to say that they were not responsible.

Then the hon. member for Ladybrand had stated that nothing had been done for the advancement of agriculture, in which statement he was supported by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens. The speaker rejoiced that the hon. member last mentioned had shown so much interest in farming matters. Disapproval had also been expressed at what the Government had done in the matter of land settlement, and in order to help the poor whites in the towns. The hon. members for Fort Beaufort and Cape Town, Central, had also attacked the late Transvaal Government for what they did on behalf of the poor whites in providing them with cattle. Those people had been kept under careful supervision, they had kept their cattle, and the bulk of them were once more on their legs. In that way they had helped 4,500 people, but the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had nothing but censure for it all. He was opposed to the system, despite the fact that the people concerned had made progress again, and despite the fact that they now owned far more cattle than they had received. Perhaps they were a little behind hand now and again in paying the interest, but the Government had full security. Did the hon. members for Fort Beaufort and Cape Town, Central, prefer to retain the system of settlement which had been applied in the Transvaal in the time of the Crown Colony Government? The hon. member for Fordsburg was a member of that Government, and that system was one of his masterpieces, so that the hon. member was an authority on the subject of land settlement. The Crown Colony Government had spent £276,000 on the settlements at Potchefstroom and Klerksdorp. They had incurred a loss there of £54,000, without taking into account the question of diminished values. Those settlements had not been a success, and yet the Opposition recommended that system. They could see from that how much value ought to be attached to the criticism they received from the Opposition. If the Government had had money enough, of course they would have been able to do much more in the way of land settlement, especially if they were supported in it by the Opposition. But what had the settlements in the Transvaal already cost? The figures were amazing. Of the advances made they had written off £45,000, £27,000 on account of rents, and £26,000 for interest and irrecoverable debts. The ground was bought by the Government at a price which the settler could never pay, and on that account £142,000 had had to be written off, whilst for supplies another £100,000 had also been written off. Altogether that came to £540,000, and it gave them a good example and much food for reflection. It was very much better to support a Government which went to work more quietly, rather than to pay out a lot of money which they would later on have to regret. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had tried to make the Department of Lands ridiculous for its manner of advertising the available farms. The hon. member had pointed out that in its advertisements the Department had stated that malaria prevailed on the farms. The speaker thought it would have been a crime if the Department had made it public that the farms were healthy, when as a matter of fact they were malarial. Then references had been made to Canada but they would remember that Colonel Gorgas had stated that it was easier to get protection against malaria than against the cold in Winnipeg. (Laughter.) The Government was perfectly justified in going slowly. It was quite true that no great settlements were being established, but there was a lot of ground of great value being given out. What did the Director of Irrigation say on the subject of settlements? He said that, in his opinion, nothing else could be done than to see in the first place that water was found on the farms before the ground was given out for settlement purposes. The Department of Irrigation had undoubtedly done a great deal for Zoutpansberg, Waterberg, and Rusten berg. They found boreholes wherever they went, and young farmers were coming from all directions, and helping to convert what were formerly desert lands into good farming lands. The Lands Department also were doing excellent work, and that was why the speaker felt so strongly in regard to the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Ladybrand, and his complaints about that department. In the course of his professional duties the sneaker came much into contact with the department, and it was often his duty to advise people to apply to that department, Help was always given, in fact he did not know of a single case which had met with a refusal. The engineers came from great distances, they stayed with the people, and gave them the best possible advice. Then the hon. member for Ladybrand had also made mocking references to the field-cornets, and it was to be hoped that the hon. member would repeat what he had said in his own Province.

They were told nearly every day what was being done in Australia and New Zealand in the matter of settlements. It appeared to him, however, that South Africa need in no wise be ashamed of what it had done when compared with those countries. They had, for instance, recently appointed a Commission in Victoria in order to find out whether the settlements had really been as successful as they had been made out, and whether they were not costing too much money. What had the Government done under the Crown Lands Settlement Act of 1912? Under clauses 10 and 11 of that Act 61,937 morgen of ground had been bought to a value of £36,809, on which 913 settlers had been placed. Under Clause 13 some 324,991 morgen had been bought at a cost of £338,000, which had enabled them to assist 600 people. Now they talked about “change of ownership,” but it was not that. He personally knew how the thing was worked. Formerly those who were in possession of a little capital could not buy from the absentee landowner, because the latter asked too big a price. But when the Government bought the ground, the applicant paid one-fifth of the purchase price and the Government the remainder. Then the ground was well worked, and there could be no question of speculation, because the ground remained the property of the State until the purchase price had been paid in full. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, disapproved of the system, and the hon. member for Fordsburg attacked the Land Bank because the latter advanced moneys as loans in order to pay off other loans. But why was the Land Bank created? When Responsible Government was given them in the Transvaal the position of the farmer was that he simply could not get money. The banks wanted eight or ten per cent., and nobody would lend money on farms in the Zoutpansberg. Then came the Land Bank, which lent money at low interest. The bonds at high interest were cancelled, and the farmer was able to get on. It was now said that this was being done at the expense of the taxpayer, but the taxpayer did not suffer at all, because the securities were excellent. They heard nothing about the taxpayer when the hon. member for Fordsburg was busy with his land settlements.

Formerly those who were in the possession of a little capital could never buy ground from the big land companies, but since the land tax was in the air there were a number of farms in the market. With the help of the Land Bank those farms could now be purchased.

The hon. member for Bethlehem possessed a wide knowledge of taxation affairs, and he was the first to applaud the speech of the hon. member for Barberton, but that, of course, was before the blunder was discovered in the calculations which the hon. member for Barberton made. The hon. member for Bethlehem had sharply criticised the Government because they had not been sufficiently economical. The hon. member was, of course, strongly in favour of economy so long as it was not applied in Bethlehem. He wanted, however to see an item of £50,000 placed on the Estimates for agricultural education. But where were the Government to get the money from?

What was actually the chief thing in the proposals of the hon. member for Barberton? The hon. member wanted to get an additional £200,000 in taxes from the pockets of the natives. If there should be a deficit, and the Government decided to levy a higher tax on the Kaffirs, he (the speaker), would regard such a thing as entirely wrong, and in that respect he agreed with what had been stated by the Prime Minister. He did not wish to be understood to say that at the first increase of the tax on the Kaffirs, they would go into rebellion, for they knew that there was now a Defence Force in existence, but the present was not the proper time to meddle with the taxation of the Kaffirs. The hon. member for Bethlehem wanted £50,000 for the agricultural education of the whites. The object was praiseworthy enough, but he wanted to get the money out of the pockets of the natives, and that was totally wrong. The hon. member had no right to propose that. It was very easy to say that the Kaffir must pay more, but those in the Transvaal were already paying £350,000, and what did they get back in a direct form? They got nothing more than £15,000. That was all, and certainly it was not too much. There was a general objection to direct taxation. To increase the taxes on the Kaffirs was a much more dangerous proposition than the proposed land tax. In the speech which had been delivered by the hon. member for Barberton he had taken no account of the 47,000 Kaffirs on the Witwatersrand who came from elsewhere and paid no taxes. That was an error which would certainly be put right by the Budget Committee which had been proposed by the hon. member for Uitenhage. (Laughter.) The speaker did not doubt that good use would be made of the proposals which had been made by the hon. member for Barberton. They would tell the people that the whites would have to pay taxes now, and not the Kaffirs. They must not think, however, that the Kaffirs knew nothing, for in fact they knew exactly when injustice was done to them. They could treat the Kaffir strictly, but also with justice. Speaking generally the natives were very obedient to the law, and a handful of police were sufficient to restrain thousands of them. On the other hand, it would never do to make enemies of them.

The hon. member for Fordsburg was not satisfied with the land tax, and had stated that the tax would fall on people who did not know what they were to do with the land. But had not the hon. member seen in the newspapers what had taken place in London? A meeting of landowners had been held there representing three and a half million morgen of ground, and those were the people who would fall under the land tax. They should read the report of the Landowners’ Association, representing about five million morgen of ground. Much of that ground lay in districts which were not suitable as settlement areas, but the society also owned ground which was eminently suitable for that purpose. Many of their farms were situated in the neighbourhood of Government farms which were already destined for use as settlements. Since the land tax was in the air a number of those farms had come into the market. That was the first result of the tax. If the taxation proposals were withdrawn, then at once 75 per cent. of those farms would be withdrawn from the market.

The hon. member for Rustenburg had heartily supported the Government in connection with the Natives Land Act, and it was to be regretted that the hon. member could not also support the Government in their land tax proposals. The effect of that tax would be to render available to the sons of South Africa many farms which were at present unobtainable. The Opposition could not bring up anything against the imposition of such a tax. They had in fact always advocated a land tax, and would introduce one to-morrow if they had the opportunity. The Labour party also would support the tax, seeing that they had already introduced a similar sort of tax in the Transvaal. The collection of the tax would not be so very expensive, as the Government would be able to avail themselves of the services of the Land Bank inspectors for the purpose of valuing the farms.

They had had a number of alternative proposals placed before them, but they had won very little support. The hon. member for Rustenburg wanted to levy a tax on the exports of raw diamonds, and had referred them to a report of the Select Committee in the Senate. Both the minority and the majority reports of that Committee recommended the imposition of such a tax, but that was not for the purpose of getting revenue, but in order to encourage the establishment of a local diamond polishing industry. Such a tax was not to be commended. Should there be another slump in the diamond market as was now the case with the market for ostrich feathers, they would hold the Government responsible for it. The hon. member for Rustenburg would not be willing to accept the responsibility for it.

It was very hard for members who supported the Government to approve of taxation proposals, until they Came to consider the alternative suggestions, and then they came to the conclusion that the Government’s plans were the best. Still, he wished to say that if the Government, or any other Government, went so far as to apply the tax to the smaller farms, it would become the duty of those who now supported the Government to fight against such a proposal as hard as they could. In the form in which it was at present placed before the House, however, he had no objection to it. (Cheers.)

said he was afraid at one time that they were going to have no information about that very large proportion of our population which had no direct representation in this House, but the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had raised the matter on the question of the equalisation of the taxes paid by the coloured races. But the hon. member was somewhat premature, because before doing that we should do something towards unifying the policy with which we treated these people. This giant who had been sleeping in our midst was beginning to awake, and we should study what the effect would be when finally he roused himself and took an active part in the affairs of South Africa. Governments in Natal in the past would rather go out and put their enemies in office than face the native question. He hoped the Union, however, would face the question in the near future, for if it did not South Africa would rush to disaster. 78 per cent. of our population were non-Europeans, which put us in a different position to any other part of the British Dominions with the exception of India. In the Southern States of America only about 30 per cent. of the population consisted of non-Europeans. The tendency in studying the native question in South Africa was to do so almost entirely from the point of view of labour—“ this valuable asset ” as it was called.

A reservoir of labour.

said that when the voortrekkers arrived in the Free State there was hardly an indigenous black man in that country, but now the main population of the Free State was rapidly becoming coloured. That was a startling matter. Although we had such a very large disproportion between the coloured and white races, we were utilising 212,000 coloured people all the time from outside the Union.

said that the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) had that afternoon made an attack on the Government, and what had been the object of it? Was it to the benefit of the people and the country, or was it merely to bring the Government into bad odour outside the House? The hon. member had also made an attack on the Prime Minister, who was well able to defend himself, but if the hon. member made such an attack he should do so in an honourable manner, and not twist the right hon. gentleman’s words. All that the Prime Minister had said about the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) was that he was glad that the hon. member had not made such a mistake of a million (as he had in his speech the other day), when he had been Minister of Finance; and perhaps that mistake was due to not being in such good company now. (Laughter.)

It struck him that if one woke the hon. member for Ladybrand at one o’clock in the morning, the first thing he would say would be, “That Eighty Club speech”; because on every platform Mr. Fichardt referred to that speech. And what was wrong with that speech. The Prime Minister had said that Africa only wanted England’s best—and that was what they did want. (Ministerial cheers.) And now the hon. member for Ladybrand criticised the Prime Minister and the Government in regard to the establishment of an agricultural college at the Glen. Why had the hon. member not opposed the proposal when the matter was before the House, instead of now going through the lobbies spreading all kinds of rumours? Did the hon. member for Ladybrand know Tweespruit and Grootfontein? Did he think they would be suitable places to have large amounts spent on? The hon. member for Ladybrand criticised the Government for having appointed too many officials. Did the hon. member not know that these men had been appointed under the old self-government, and not by the Union Government? He (the speaker) did not think the Free State would be grateful for what the hon. member had said. The hon. member had mentioned a field-cornet who did no work but go to town to draw his salary. Shame on that field-cornet! And then the hon. member for Ladybrand had said that Civil Servants went on work at 9.15 and finished at 3.45. Where were these Civil Servants—at Ladybrand? (Laughter.) Then the hon. member for Uitenhage had said there were too many officials. Where were there too many officials? (An hon. Member: Perhaps at Ladybrand.) Then the hon. member wanted the Estimates to go to a Select Committee. This was rather inconsistent, seeing that not so long ago the hon. member had said that he was opposed to Select Committees. (Laughter.)

Dealing with the taxation proposals and the charges of extravagance, Mr. Cronje said that it was not so long ago that many hon. members had urged that Cape officials should be placed on the old basis of salary. Then, when in the past the Government had appointed one head official in the Agricultural Department to take the place of the four head officials of the past, there had been a hue and a cry. Hon. members were very inconsistent in their attitude. He did not know whether there were too many officials in Cape Town, but he could say that in the rural districts there were not too many officials. As to police, he could say that more police officials were required in the outlying districts. Dealing with education, he was pleased to see what had been done to bring education within the reach of every child. In the Free State people were gratified at what had been done, so that to-day, instead of 18,000 children having to go without education, there are 17,000. Mr. Cronje went on to urge the necessity of additional postal, telephone, and telegraphic facilities being given to the rural districts. (Hear, hear.) He could, however, not understand why the rural districts should have to pay so much more for telephonic communication than the big towns. In regard to the establishment of industries, he urged that members should not look so much to the Government for the establishment of industries. If hon. members in their own districts took the initiative to start industries, they would see that the country would benefit. Let hon. members see what had been the outcome of the co-operative societies started in the Free State. He could not agree with the action of the Government in establishing creameries, and then letting them for the payment of a small interest on the capital. The Bethal Creamery cost the Government about £9,000 per year. This was not a sound position. Industries should be made co-operative, and although the Government should assist, they should not actually run them. The creameries at Standerton and Middelburg were really Government institutions. Turning to the Department of Public Works, it seemed to him there was a screw loose there. Expensive buildings were put up, and they were told that this was due to the fact that the building material was so much more expensive to-day than in the past. He urged that public buildings should be made cheaper. As to repairs, he held that these were effected most unsatisfactorily, which, to his mind, was due to the fact that the inspectors were too few and far between. In this connection, he wished to see the old system of Building Committees revived.

Irrigation works.

Irrigation works were done on a co-operative system in the Free State. (Cheers.) Mr. Cronje then turned to Mr. Brandt Wessels, who, he said, wished to tax the inland Provinces through railway rates to the tune of £250,000. (Laughter.) The hon. member had further said the railway tariffs were too low and should be increased. He (Mr. Cronje) hoped the Government would not act on the hon. member’s suggestion. Dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Von Brandis, Mr. Cronje said the hon. member was very ungrateful. He had asked: “Where is the Defence Force?” Had the Defence Force not protected Johannesburg in January? (Cheers.) In conclusion, Mr. Cronje said that of course no one was too anxious to see fresh taxation imposed. It had been remarked by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks) that Estimates were drawn up just as the Government pleased. If that were so the Government would have balanced revenue and expenditure, but Estimates like that would not have been honest.

said he did not think too much money was being spent on the administration of the country. They should take into consideration the fact that the country was expanding and developing, and naturally in view of that heavy expenditure must follow. The Civil Servants could not be dismissed, that was out of the question. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the House should be grateful to the hon. member for Barberton for what he had said in regard to the natives, because he thought it would be a good thing if they could place native taxation on the basis of equality. The speaker said he did not agree on that point with what had been said by the Prime Minister. Dealing with the remarks of the Labour members, Dr. Neethling said he was afraid the ideals which these members had put before the House would never materialise. (Hear, hear.) These hon. members were the cause of much of the misery in the country. In Johannesburg the labourers made large wages, and yet claimed more money and less work. (Hear, hear.) It had recently cost the country £300,000 to restrain the actions of working-men, who forgot that no less than £1,500,000 had been spent in connection with the miners’ phthisis. Did hon. members know what expenditure was involved by the proper. administration of affairs on the Rand? The Government was not to blame for the present state of affairs in Johannesburg, but all the blame should be attributed to the Labour members themselves. (Hear, hear.)

The Labour Party had wrong ideals in regard to immigration and taxation, and many Afrikanders were being led astray by them. It had been stated by the hon. member for Georgetown that after the next general election there would be forty Labour members in the House. God preserve the country from such a thing! The Labour members were the enemies of the country, and would have to be resisted. The Unionists ought to help the Government to do that, and indeed they ought all to stand together to fight such a great evil. One section of the Government party also ought to help them in that respect, because if they did not show a united front to those detestable persons in Johannesburg then the evil would make giant steps forward.

Well, the Government had been pretty generally criticised, even the hon. member for Bethlehem had essayed a financial speech. The hon. member was still young, and it was their duty to forgive him much —(laughter)—and the Prime Minister had dealt with him in the gentlest manner possible. The hon. member had built up a castle on the sandy foundations which had been laid for him by the Hon. member for Barberton. And now the castle had tumbled down. He also wanted to increase the railway tariffs, which was quite a novel system of finance. The hon. member was furthermore amazed at the size of the public debt, though he ought to have known all about that before. How had the hon. gentleman been able to enlighten his constituents on such subjects? He should be most prudent in dealing with them. Other hon. members also had ventured in the same dangerous territory.

The speaker said he regretted the secession of the hon. member for Fauresmith from the party, as he thought seriously over affairs. What was the cause of the change? How could he go back to Kroonstad and say that he was now supporting the Labour Party? It was noticeable that the hon. member for Boshof now ceased to call out “hear, hear.” Some hon. members who remained faithful in their allegiance to the Government were made out to be invertebrates, although their wives and other relatives were Hertzogites. They continued their loyal support to the Government, however; they had not gone far astray, and it was easy therefore for them to return. The interests of the country were better preserved in that way.

Finally, he was bound to express regret that so much money was being spent on irrigation in one district only, namely, in Worcester. No doubt, it was said to be done by means of co-operation, but the Minister ought not to lose sight of Beaufort West; where there were fine facilities for the damming up of the water. A wall could be built between the two mountains so as to conserve the water in the Zout River, and the Minister of Lands should give some attention to the matter. Waterworks could also be laid down along the Zak River, as it ran towards the two rivers. The same thing could be done at Prince Albert, where the water could be dammed up as it came out of the mountains, but there would be further opportunities to discuss those points. (Cheers.)

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Agreed to.

The debate was adjourned until to-morrow.