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

Let them take the vote for the eradication of scab in this country. The vote for scab inspectors, etc., amounted to £155,000. To that they had to add £100,000 a year spent upon dip. The country was, therefore, put to the expense of £255,000 a year for the eradication of scab. Our wool, he took it, suffered to the tune of at least a million a year in value in consequence of the prevalence of scab. As far as he could ascertain, the country was in a worse condition as regarded scab to-day than it had been in former years. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) At any rate, he had been told that in the Free State that was the case. Whether that were so or not, what he contended was that every member of the House must admit that we were not getting this disease under in the way we should in order to justify the expenditure made upon it. He was strongly of opinion that the greatest onus should be thrown upon the man who moved scabby sheep from one part of the country to another. So serious was the stigma attached to South African wool that in his own district farmers, who had been taking particular care with their wool, had been recommended to send their clean wool to Australia, where they would be paid a sufficiently high price for it, and it would then be shipped to Europe with Australian wool, thus getting rid of the stigma attaching to South African wool. With regard to the remedies proposed for dealing with the expenditure, the hon. member said that it was quite impossible for members on that side to support the motion to send the Estimates to a Select Committee. It was the duty of the Government to go through these Estimates and effect whatever economies were possible. Then as to the question of the best policy to be pursued to put matters right in this country, he took it as a general principle that the soundest policy at the present time would be one of development, so as to bring a white population into this country, both industrial and farming. He felt that one could not exist without the other. As to which should come first, he thought there was a good deal in favour of beginning with land settlement. (Hear, hear.) The important point to remember was that we were having a growing native population and a lessening white population at the present time. Something must be done to rectify the balance now against us. It was said that we had now too much production on the farms for the towns to absorb. The figures of imports into this country gave an absolute denial to that, because of our imports £4,788,000 actually represented farm produce. Was that not a very strong argument in favour of closer settlement?

The hon. member went on to advocate the institution of small holdings, and remarked that the country was crying out for development. Did it not stand to reason, he asked, that from the money which would be obtainable from a land tax many developments that the farmers of this country required would be rendered possible. Take the matter of police. Throughout the country the farmers were crying out for better police protection. Who was to pay for it? Then again the farmers were crying out for irrigation. How was that to be paid for? From the general revenue. Let them look at the position of the man in the town. He said they were going to tax him on an income of £1,000 and over, and to apply that to irrigation. The farmer in the immediate neighbourhood of any irrigation scheme was going to have his land enhanced 30 times in value. No one suggested the taxation of improved values. If they had a tax on unimproved values and an irrigation scheme were carried out, which conferred a benefit on the neighbouring farmer who had contributed nothing towards it, the effect would be that the unimproved value of his land would go up and he would be taxed to that extent. That would be an inducement to the Government to go forward with these schemes. Let them take the railway system. The farmers asked for a railway and the reply was given: “Why should we put a railway in your district? Why should we pay for that line? ”

They were the people who benefit, and the unimproved value of land would go up. Now the whole country stagnated, because the farmer, never having taken the trouble to go into the matter, had the idea that the land tax would be a blow to him. A fair land tax would be the greatest boon to the farmer. The country was crying out for a tax of this description, because it would be a great boon to the country in general and to the farmer in particular. He pointed to the effects of such a tax in New Zealand, and said that Victoria, where no such tax was in force, was the most backward of the Provinces. It had not had such a great effect upon the towns, but the country had gone ahead by leaps and bounds. There were many who thought they could attain the end they desired by means of Protection, but that was not the thing. Protection might go hand in hand, but it was only when those hon. members who represented the land-owners convinced their constituents of the benefits of a moderate land tax would progress and prosperity come to the country. Land settlement could not be brought about without a moderate land tax. They had been treated to some lectures as to what the Government were doing. It had been said that nobody but Keen business men could put this matter of taxation right. Well, there were many good business men on the other side of the House, but they took the opposite view. Keen agriculturists could put agriculture right, but there were farmers who had spent years in politics, and had not been able to achieve anything. Why should they not try something new, that would bring about real developments, even if their profits were taxed a trifle for the time being? They welcomed the proposals of the Minister as a commencement—as a commencement. But what a commencement! Was it an equitable tax which he proposed? He touched upon the details of the Minister’s proposals, and asked the House if it thought that that was the way to develop the country. They in that Province had been taxed, and wrongly taxed, on improved values. What would they think of a municipality which was afraid to rate its town because the owners did not want to be rated? A great deal had been said about the farmer being the backbone of the country. Well, let him prove this by bearing a fair share of the burdens of the country.

He (Mr. Van der Riet) represented an agricultural community, and he said that, in his constituency, there was not a farmer so backward who would not say: “If you prove to me that the funds derived from this taxation are going to be spent in the interests of the farmer, and going to benefit the country, I will not oppose it.” No man would be so foolish as to stand against the tax.

Then there was the disadvantage to which people at Vryburg were subjected in reference to the railway from Vryburg to Mafeking, which belonged to a private company. The rates on that particular section were almost prohibitive, but if a man consigned goods from south of Vryburg to any station on the Bechuanaland Railway he got the advantage of South African Railway rates. He knew that the Minister had made representations to the company, but he had not succeeded in getting the company to reduce their rates. He (Mr. Wessels) recognised that a State subsidy would be out of the question, but he thought the position could be met by establishing two stations, one a little south of Vryburg and another a little north of Mafeking, thus giving to Vryburg the advantage of being able to send goods according to South African Railway rates. The hon. member went on to refer to the catering arrangements on the railway. He complained that between Vryburg and Mafeking higher charges for refreshments were imposed on the line than were in force south of Vryburg. Then at stations where the Department had no proper refreshment rooms and little places were leased by the Department to various people for the sale of tea, coffee, etc., no provision was made so that Kafirs did not go and use the same refreshment places as Europeans. He had actually seen at one station Europeans go and have refreshments at one of these stalls and be followed by a crowd of Kafirs, who used the same cups as the Europeans had been using. That, he thought, was a disgraceful state of affairs and should not be allowed. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Railway Department should make a stipulation that there should be a separate place for coloured people, because, after all, their mode of living was not such that a European could go and drink out of the same cup. (Hear, hear.) Touching on the Budget, he said he thought that hon. members on the Opposition side were not always consistent. One day they preached economy and next day when the Government put it to the test and discharged some workers on the railway the Opposition were up in arms.

Proceeding, Mr. Wessels said that the Minister of Finance in his Budget had declared the adherence of his Government to what one might call a policy of free trade. That came as a big surprise to him, and, he had no doubt, to many others on the Ministerial side. They, as a party, had been going round the country and proclaiming the doctrine of protection, and they now found that they were supporting practically a free trade Government. (Hear, hear.) The little re-adjustments of the tariff which were going to be made, to his mind, meant nothing. The South African Party, representing the landed interests in this country, had always stood for the principle of protection. He was glad to see that some industries were going to be benefited by this new tariff, including the leather industry, which, he thought, was a quite legitimate trade in this country. He must say that the Government had never been very strong in regard to the protection of colonial industries. The Minister of Finance had argued that if they went in for large protective duties they would have these industries springing up at the coast and employing coloured men. That was a very curious argument, to his mind, because if the Minister went to Paarl he would see huge industries built up with the aid of coloured labour. It seemed to him (Mr. Wessels) that, as a party, they might well pause and take stock of their political principles. They were now free traders, and they were fast adopting the Socialistic proposals of hon. members on the crossbenches. They had got as far as a direct tax on land, and during the debate one could see there was little difference between hon. members on the cross-benches and hon. members on the Opposition benches. They were in favour of a direct tax on land and a tax on unearned increments, and they were fast approaching the time when they would be in favour of all these Socialistic doctrines. It was true that the land tax was not going to affect a large number of people, but don’t let them forget that it was their party who had laid down this principle, and he looked upon it as the thin end of the wedge. However small the number of people they were going to touch, they could not get away from the fact that a large number of people who were beneficially occupying the land and engaged in pastoral farming were going to be taxed. He asked the Minister whether in a country like South Africa that suffered so much from diseases of stock it was a right policy to tax a man who was legitimately putting his money into farming operations? There was no country in the world where farmers showed such a poor return—he was excluding, of course, the ostrich farming industry—as South Africa, There was no business man to-day who would be satisfied with such a small profit as the farmer derived from his operations. If they took any farm and the capital invested, there were few men who could show a return of 6 to 8 per cent.

If this taxation was directed against land companies holding up tracts of unoccupied land, then the Government had set about the matter in a wrong way. He was not against taxation of unoccupied land, because there was a big demand for land in South Africa at present, and there was no reason why land should be unoccupied. But if their idea was to tax the companies there was no reason why they should tax people beneficially occupying the land, and people who were trying to make the best use of it. The direct result of this taxation was that they were going to hit the people in various parts of the country who beneficially held large areas. Let them show him any area where farmers who were making money out of their land would come within this tax. They were going to the North-west, where it was essential for a man to have a large area, and this was the class of man who was going to be singled out. That morning he met a farmer from the Beaufort West district, and he (Mr. Wessels) was surprised to hear of the large number of farmers who were going to be brought under this scheme of taxation. Men with 5,000 morgen were making five times as much as men with 30,000 morgen, and they were going to hit the latter under these proposals. The Government had failed to discriminate between unoccupied land and land beneficially occupied, and there was no exemption as far as he could see. He would be in favour of taxing a man who had 1,000 morgen of unoccupied land. There was a cry that people should be placed on the land. What was the position of the landowner? They had already got certain direct taxation on the land. The Provincial Council of the Cape was getting machinery ready to levy a substantial tax on land for the purpose of education. The farmer paid for roads, education, £85,000 in the Cape for quitrent, and now this Government proposed to levy a further tax on the people. They, as representatives of the holders of land in South Africa, had introduced the thin end of the wedge, and laid foundations on which others were going to build.

He hoped the Minister would consider the matter and see whether he could not do away with the danger. He considered that it would cost more to collect this tax than what the Minister would get out of it. If they were going to die it was better they should be billed by their enemies than by their friends. (Laughter.) It seemed to him that land was in for a bad time. (Labour laughter.) Of course everybody knew they were bound to have an income tax because of the rate the Government was going. It was a most undesirable tax, because officials had the right to pry into private affairs, and once they got such a tax it would stay. He thought the machinery of the income tax encouraged the Government to be extravagant. He thought that if the Government had taken the Customs tariff into consideration it would have been found possible to raise a considerable amount of revenue without going in for this extra taxation. Hon. members on the cross-benches were not going to contribute a penny, and look at the cost they had been to the country. (Laughter.) He said it was only right that every man should contribute according to his means. He wished to say a few words to the Minister of Lands. He asked the Minister to see that his department moved quicker with regard to the disposal of Crown lands. The Minister got a move on when he came into office, but he thought the pace should be increased. He thought that he should go in for more boring machines, and take advantage of opportunities to buy land. No doubt the Minister was hampered by the Land Board, but there were many occasions when land came into the market, and the Minister should take advantage of these opportunities. They had 22,000,000 morgen of Crown land, but of that only a very limited area was suitable for settlement, provided that water could be found.

In the area he represented, the land, even after water had been found, was not suitable for oversea settlers. Only a certain class of people could make use of such land —people who were accustomed to hardships which a settler had to endure on the outskirts of the Kalahari. Where were we to get land to put settlers on? The answer was that we must buy it, but the best land very seldom came into the market, and if we wanted a successful settlement, we must have only the very best land. Hon. members, when they talked so glibly about land settlement, appeared not to realise the difficulties in the way. They must have good land near a market, and they must start the settlers under favourable conditions. If they wanted settlements they must, in order to obtain suitable ground, have the right to expropriate, and no Government would be bold enough to say that it would expropriate the land belonging to farmers. There were 12 to 15 thousand men in South Africa who were prepared to go on the land, but, according to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, they were to be put on one side, and oversea settlers to be called in.

He wished to come to the proposals before the House. From what he had said, it must be quite plain that he could not vote for the motion of the Minister of Finance. The amendment of the hon. member for George Town he at once brushed aside. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, on the principle of that he could have gone with the hon. member, but it was worded in such a way that it did not seem to him to be so much ah attempt to get at the matter in hand as it was an attempt to get at the Government. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Barberton, he could not agree with that, because the hon. member had made certain taxation proposals with which he (Mr. Keyter) did not agree. Lastly, he came to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. If that proposal had been workable, he would have voted for it, but it appeared unworkable. The Republics had been mentioned. He wished to tell the House how things were done in the Orange Free State. There they had a Budget Committee. The Treasurer drew up the Estimates, and when the Raad met a committee of three was appointed. That committee elected a chairman from its own number. The committee, together with the Treasurer, went thoroughly through the Estimates and reported to the House. When the Raad was in committee on the Estimates, the chairman read off every item in the Estimates, from the highest to the lowest salaries. Every member had a right to object to any item and to propose other items. Now he asked any member of this House, how could they compare that with the work they were now engaged on? How could they do it in this House? They could not possibly do it, unless they sat year after year and tried to squeeze fifteen months into each year. In conclusion, Mr. Keyter said that he was not going to vote for these proposals, and at the proper time he would vote according to his convictions.

Then in justification of his policy of retrenchment, the Minister of Railways and Harbours said that they could not get their orders as quickly executed as they wanted if they placed orders for their rolling stock in South Africa. No less a sum than £2,866,000 had been sent oversea for rolling stock for use on the South African Railways. Of course, a great deal of rolling stock had been made in South Africa, and so long as more work was required to foe done, and there were men in South Africa who were willing and able to do it, they ought to have the opportunity of doing all of it, instead of the orders being sent oversea. The Minister argued that he wanted the stock in a hurry at the very earliest possible date. On the average, the hon. Minister had said it took from eighteen to twenty months to get rolling-stock made in their own shops, but by placing the orders overseas, the stock could be obtained within nine to twelve months. The Railway Board had made a very different statement than that. Evidently there was a difference of opinion between the Minister, who was Chairman of the Board, and his fellow-Commissioners, in the Railway Board’s report, they stated that it was sometimes necessary for them to sanction money to be spent on rolling-stock, and then come to Parliament for the money afterwards, because it took such a long time to get it from oversea. As long as from two to three years from the date of placing the order, according to the Railway Board’s report—a report signed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours on the 26th of March. The Minister ought to explain why, when he tried to justify the retrenchment policy, he said it took from nine to twelve months to get the orders from oversea, whereas the report said from two to three years. Surely he was speaking with a double voice. He had one outlook for his own point of view, and another outlook when dealing with the men. On the ground of cost, he (Mr. Boydell) was glad to hear the Minister say that he did not mind a little extra for rolling-stock if it were made in South Africa. He was willing to pay 7 or even up to 10 per cent. more, and hon. members cheered him when he made that statement. He (Mr. Boydell) would draw the attention of the House to a statement which he would make on the authority of the Minister’s own engineer, who used to be Works Manager at the Durban Works, Mr. Wheatley. On the authority of Mr. Wheatley, and on the official figures, the Minister would find that rolling-stock had been made in South Africa at a cost of about 6 per cent. in excess of that made oversea, and Mr. Wheatley said that that rolling-stock had a longer life of from 10 to 15 per cent. He (Mr. Boydell) had been dealing with these arguments for the past ten years, but each of the Ministers of Railways and Harbours seemed to be travelling in the same groove, and that groove was not in the interests of the men or in the interests of the country. He hoped there would be more expenditure. He did not want to go into details at that time, but there had been nothing done for the apprentices. They had got nothing but idle sympathy. Then nothing had been done to alter the conditions of the men where there was great excess of hours. There would have to be a great increase in railway expenditure if they wanted to bring peace and contentment into the railway staff. No fewer than 11,000 men were getting less than 8s. a day, and over 5,000 were receiving less than 5s. a day. All those things were causing unrest. He was tired of saying the same thing, but he would keep on until something was done, or until someone took his place.

But there was a far more serious thing than those he had mentioned. He referred to the policy of victimisation which was now going on in the service. The Minister of Railways and Harbours, in connection with the Railway Strike Bill, accepted certain amendments which came from the cross-benches and others which he himself produced, dealing in a magnanimous way with the men who went on strike. The Minister of Railways had stated that no striker was to be victimised unless he had been a ringleader or had tried to destroy property, but the Minister had gone to much greater length than would have been possible if he had dealt only with men on the lines he had laid down. There were 600 railwaymen who went on strike at Durban. Were 82 of them leaders?— (hear, hear)—for that was the number who had been victimised by the Government. A very significant feature was the fact that nearly all the retrenched men belonged to Trade Unions, although they were not active members and were not officials. The mere fact that a striker was in a Trade Union was quite sufficient for him to be victimised. Three firemen at Durban, who were not strike leaders, had been retrenched, although the firemen in the Durban district were doing a lot of overtime. These victimisations were largely due, no doubt, to certain local heads “getting their own back” on men who had not curried favour with them. A man named De Jongh, who had been in the Railway Department for six years, joined the strike and was taken back at the end of January. Subsequently the department found that he officiated as sergeant of the strike police and so he was dismissed. The Minister should instruct his officers to be very careful what information they placed reliance on which came from loyal men. If a loyal railway servant wanted to do an injury to a fellow-worker he had only to go to the head of his department and say, “So-and-so behaved very badly during the strike,” and within 24 hours the man complained of would get his notice. There was another case, that of a man who had lost his eye in the railway service, and, instead of being compensated, he was allowed to remain in the Railway Department. He joined in the strike and Government seeing a good opportunity of getting rid of him without the payment of compensation refused to take him back again There was a well-founded rumour that Mr. Chapman, who had been a member of the Grievances Commission, had been victimised. Mr. Chapman was here during the July strike. Afterwards he had six months’ leave and visited Australia, He was a member of the Executive of the Railwaymen’s Society. but did not return to South Africa until after the strike, in which he took no part. Still, he was marked down for retrenchment. Whatever good the Minister might think he had done by wiping out the penalties from the Railway Strike Bill was being more than nullified by this policy of victimisation, which was going on throughout the country. Many victimised men wore being maintained by their fellow railway workers. (Hear, hear.) The number of strike leaders on the streets was between two and three hundred. This was having a very bad effect, from the Minister’s point of view, on the general contentment of the railway service. The Minister thought that getting rid of these men was an easy way out of the difficulty, but every victimised man was a missionary who would swell the ranks of those who would strike again. Let them take the way in which members of this House had rounded on the Railway Society and on Mr. Poutsma. What happened the other day? Didn’t the railway workers show their confidence in the Railway Society by returning Mr. Nield, the acting secretary, as their representative on that Commission by an overwhelming majority? That majority was 1,000 more even than Mr. Poutsma got. This policy of victimisation was doing incalculable harm throughout the country. If they wished to create contentment by wiping away the pains and penalties under the Railway Strike Bill, they should deal in a better spirit with those men who had been put on the streets at the same time.

Touching on the white labour policy of the Railway Department, Mr. Boydell said that the number of white labourers employed between 191C and 1913 was as follows: 1910, 2,559; 1911, 3,187; 1912, 4,103; 1913, 4,477. Thus in four years the white labourers had increased by 1,916, while coloured labour in the same period had increased by 5,784, which was totally out of proportion. As long as such miserably low wages were paid, he was afraid that it would be difficult to justify this so called white labour policy of the Government. The Government said that they could save £90,000 a year, he believed it was, if they did not employ these white labourers. In India they had got magistrates, engine-drivers, stationmasters, gangers, guards, etc., all Indians. Why not wipe out all the white staff here and put in a black staff, and they would probably save five millions a year? This white labour policy was merely a recruiting ground for cheap labour. The fact remained that on the railways today thousands were underpaid, thousands were overworked, apprentices were badly treated, and men were victimised unnecessarily, and cast into the streets to join the unemployed. He repudiated the charge that hon. members on those benches were to blame. The fault, if anybody’s, was the Minister’s, for allowing the position to reach such an acute state. Grievances accumulated, and the result was that they had an explosion. Coming to the speech of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Boydell said he had the same fault to find with that speech as he had to find with it last year. Apart from the income tax and land tax proposals, the Minister’s speeches were really only statements which might have been prepared by the Auditor-General and read out to the House.

No attempt was made in those speeches to take any stock of the assets of the country, or the disabilities under which the people of the country were labouring. No attempt was made to deal with our social and economic problems. There the Minister stood, to his mind, a tragic figure in the midst of one of the richest countries in the world, a country with untold wealth, a small white population, and of immense extent. He made no suggestion whatever towards bringing the activities of the people to bear upon the resources of the country, in order that the country might be opened up and its wealth distributed more equitably amongst the people. Let them take the mineral wealth. Our export of gold in 1909 was £30,752,000, and in 1913 it was £37,589,000, an increase of £6,836,000 between 1909 and 1913. South Africa exported diamonds in 1909 to the value of £6,368,000, and in 1913 to the value of £12,016,000, an increase of £5,645,000 in the 1909-13 period. The total value of minerals exported in 1913 was £51,856,000, an increase over 1909 of £13,240,000. He wanted to show that this country was not getting what it ought to get from its mineral wealth. He would take the figures of revenue from the Auditor-General’s report. There were certain mines in the country of which the Government were part owners, and in these figures he would leave those mines out of account. When they came to the actual tax on gold and diamonds, what did they find? He did not think there was any country in the world which would be satisfied with so little from its mineral wealth as this country got. Out of diamonds to the value of £12,000,000 exported, the country got a revenue of £437,000. When they compared this with what the German Government got from the diamond production in German South-West Africa, the amount was ridiculous. In 1913 the diamond production in German South-West Africa was £2,000,000, and out of that they got over £900,000, or 48 1-3 per cent.

In spite of that, dividends of 30 per cent. were paid by those mines on the diamonds produced. For the gold output of last year of £37,589,000 the revenue was £1,011,000, so that on their total mineral exports they got £1,478,000, which worked out at 3 per cent. Of course, it had to be taken into consideration that the country got the benefit of wages and stores, etc. He thought that the country should get a larger share of the profits which were derived from diamond and gold mining. In 1913 £8,596,000 was distributed in dividends from the gold mines; while in 1912 the amount was £8,291,000, and this in spite of the troubles last year. He suggested to the right hon. member for Victoria West that they could keep some of this gold in the country, without letting it lie down below. They said that the largest share of the profits should be kept for irrigation and other purposes, and reducing the Customs tariff.

They were crying out for money, land development, and irrigation, and here they had the natural mineral wealth of the country being sent away and the country deriving very little benefit. Coming to the question of land settlement, he said that the hon. member for Bechuanaland started off by criticising the Government for spending so much money, and finished up by saying that what they wanted was more money for veterinary surgeons and agricultural education, and so on.

The right hon. member for Victoria West had enlarged upon the position in New Zealand, but as a matter of fact before 1891, when the land tax was introduced, the depression in New Zealand owing to the land being locked up was much more acute than it was in South Africa. From 1886 to 1891 there were more people from New Zealand who went overseas than came into it to the number of 17,194. The Minister of Finance had accepted the principle which was sound, but the taxes which he proposed to introduce would not do much good to the country. But it was the thin end of the wedge, and the edge would have to be driven right home, before South Africa would be opened up, as it ought to be. The total number of persons who had gone into New Zealand since the tax was passed in excess of those who had left the country was 115,000. Those were new settlers more than those who had left the country during a period of 19 years. The tax was 1d. in the £ on all land over £500 in value. It was no use going on the area, they had to take the capital value of the farm and deduct the improvements. When the value was increased above £210,000 in value the tax was 2d. in the £ in New Zealand, The amount of revenue was not the chief point. The tax on the unimproved value of the land opened up the country. That had been found to be the case wherever it had been tried, and progress and development had been abnormal. The revenue collected in New Zealand for 1911 was £628,000 from the land tax.

In the 19 years there had been a total increase in the value of the land of 139 per cent. He would like to draw the attention to another interesting figure. One hon. member had said they could not work less than 60,000 acres, but in New Zealand they had 51 per cent. of the holdings from one to one hundred acres, 66 per cent. were from one to two hundred acres, and only 24 per cent. exceeded 320 acres, It would be seen, therefore, that it was all done by small holdings. Then the hon. member for Victoria West had enlarged upon the produce. If they looked into figures they would find that since the tax was put on in 1891 the number of occupiers on the land had increased by 67 per cent., sheep had increased by 15 per cent., and cattle by 118 per cent. The export of wool had increased 60 per cent., and most remarkable of all, dairy produce had increased owing to the land tax by no less than 554 per cent., while the increase of agricultural population was 42 per cent. It was high time that they of the Labour Party went into the back veld and gave those figures to the electors.

Referring to the Heidelberg election, Mr. Boydell stated that a handbill was issued alleging that the Labour Party, when they got into power, would put a heavy tax on livestock, such as 9d. on a cow and 6d. on a goat and 2s. on a wagon. (Laughter.) The Labour Party learned something during that election from their opponents, who would stoop to any unscrupulous methods in order to win a seat. The other day the hon. member for Fort Beaufort waxed most eloquent on the fact that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had voted against a certain political levy. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort added that the workingmen were at last finding out that the Labour members were their enemies and not their friends. But the hon. member was entirely misled, for the members of the A.S.E. did not vote against supporting political action, but against paying a shilling levy.

Business was resumed at 8 p.m.

The hon. member for Pretoria North might, he considered, be looked upon as the protagonist of protection. He even went so far as to say that protection did not make living any dearer. In referring to cement yesterday, he understood the hon. member to say that he wanted a protective duty of 10s. a cask upon cement. There was some little doubt in the minds of hon. members at the time as to what the present duty on cement was. He found that the duty was 1s. per cask of 400 lb. gross, working out at 18 per cent. (on f.o.b.) cost London. If they added to the duty the freight, shipping expenses, and landing charges, the total expense was 4s. 6d. per cask, or 80 per cent. on the first cost of the cement. Surely that was sufficient protection.

Those who knew the country must realise that it was not an easy country for land settlement. The rainfall was uncertain, the areas were vast, the producing centres were far distant from the consuming centres, and there (were very few large consuming centres, and those who understood the question realised that to make closer settlement a success settlers must have a regular certain market for their perishables. The hon. member for Fordsburg had talked of taxation on ownership, and that, he might say, they already had in the Cape. With regard to expropriation, that was a principle that would not be tolerated in this country. With regard to the development of agriculture, he must say that he thought hon. members opposite were far too exacting, and he would point out that there had been a marked development in agriculture during the last few years. In 1911 and 1912 the production of wheat increased to such an extent that the importation of that article showed a decrease of 20 per cent. in each of those years. Unfortunately in the following year they suffered from a check in the shape of drought, and thus the decrease of importations was stopped. He did believe that given good seasons they might look forward to a continued increase in the production of wheat. The hon. member then went on to quote figures to show the enormous increase in the tonnage of agricultural machinery, fertilisers, farming implements, etc., which had been carried on the railways during 1913 in comparison with the preceding year. These figures showed that great attention was being devoted to agriculture, and with regard to what had been said by the hon. member for Clanwilliam he would say that within the next two years an extremely large increase in the production of wheat on the Zak River estates might be expected. In one branch of farming—he referred to the ostrich industry—there had been a slump. The industry had developed enormously and helped the country to a considerable extent. He thought there would be one good result from this depression—it would put a check on the mad speculations in land that had taken place in the Karoo districts, and that had been felt throughout the country.

The right hon. member for Victoria West had made special reference to the production of butter. He (Mr. Vintcent) thought that the success of New Zealand in this respect was entirely due to organisation and co-operation, and his experience was that there was not much scope for the individual in this country unless the man had capital, and, therefore, he thought the agricultural department would be well advised to encourage farmers who desired to start creameries. The right hon. gentleman also said it was surprising to find that at that stage of Union they were called upon to impose fresh taxation. He did not know that this taxation had come as a surprise, because in the first year of Union and every year since then there had been a deficiency, and it was only the fact of their being able to use the profits made by the railway that they were able to avoid taxation in the past. Since Union there had been remissions of taxation on the railways and also other relief to the total of about two millions. But for these remissions they would have had a surplus of about a million this year. They had again heard those charges of extravagance which had been brought up year after year. He was not acquainted with the inner workings of the Civil Service, and he was unable to say whether those charges were justified or not. He had spoken to ex-Ministers on the subject, and while some said it was possible to save £200,000 or £300,000 a year, others said they might be able to dismiss 60 men or so But even if they dismissed, say, a hundred at an average salary of £200 a piece it would be a mere drop in the ocean. He thought that steps should be taken to prove to the country that there was not extravagance, and that it was absolutely impossible to dismiss men. In justice to the men of the Civil Service he thought this should be done, because with this sword of Damocles, so to speak, hanging over their heads, statements of the sort only led to unrest when what they wanted was a contented service. As one who was liable to pay income tax, he was nevertheless glad that it had been fixed only on the higher amount, and he would much rather pay income tax than that they should reduce expenditure materially on their public works. In respect to the Budget, he recognised that they were passing through a greater depression than the hon. Minister of Finance imagined. As a commercial man he considered that the Minister was too optimistic in framing his Estimates. Last year the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the right hon. member for Victoria West thought the Minister was too optimistic—he then differed from them—but the position then was very different from this year. There was a buoyancy in trade last year which was entirely absent in the present year. Undoubtedly the disturbances on the Rand had had a great effect, and the slump in ostrich feathers also had a far-reaching effect—more so than some hon. members seemed to think, even though there was a set-off in the increased export of wool. In view of the drought in the Free State, and in view of the smaller buying powers, the Customs return would be considerably reduced compared with last year. There was considerable depression in the produce trade, and, in view of these things, it was necessary that the hon. Minister should be very careful indeed with his estimates of expenditure. As to the taxation proposals, he thought the dumping clause was a two-edged one. They might some day wish to export some articles, and they might find some retaliation. The existing system, to his mind, was quite satisfactory. Under the clause too much power was placed in the hands of the Customs officials, and much irritation would ensue. A man who wanted his goods had no time to fight a case, and would have to accept the inevitable. Passing to the Railway Budget, Mr. Vintcent said the Minister based his Estimates on the expectation of carrying more goods than last year; but the opinion he held regarding the volume of trade during the current year would be disappointing to him. With regard to the harbour tariff proposals, he did not agree with the hon. member for Cape Town. Those proposals were originally submitted to the various Chambers of Commerce, and provided for an uniformity of charges, and subsequently a suggestion was made and carried that there should be some discrimination, and that the principle of uniformity should be departed from. He (Mr. Vintcent) could not agree with that. They had uniform rates throughout the Union on the railways, and he did not see why they should depart from the same principle in regard to the harbours.

He now came to a matter which he had on previous occasions called attention to, and it was one that still constituted a serious grievance to those living in the South-west District. In this connection the Minister of Agriculture, when passing through those parts a little while ago, said the people were being disgracefully treated. He (Mr. Vintcent) was referring to the differential taxation which the people, who formed a considerable portion of the whole population of the Province, suffered under. He did not intend going into all the details of the question, or to show the extent to which these people were called upon to pay. He might say that the rates upon that private railway were 50—400 per cent. higher than those ruling on the South African Railways. He wished to refer to the two railways running in the district— the one from Mossel Bay to Oudtshoorn belonging to the S.A.R. and running a distance of 80 miles, and the other, the Riversdale line, covering a distance of 60 miles; but while a cask of cement cost only 2s. 2d. over the longer distance, the charge over the lesser distance was 5s. per cask. He wanted to know why one district should be made to nay more than another. Then they had the Caledon line being extended in the direction of Swellendam, and he would like to know why the people who would be served by this line should get their carriage at the lower rate, while those living only a few miles across the country had to pay more? He would like to know if the Minister of Finance had really given the matter of expropriation his serious attention. The shareholders up to the present time had not received anything for what they had done towards the development of this district. But the revenue for 1912 had permitted the payment of all accumulated interest upon the debentures, and if this improvement continued ordinary shareholders might expect to receive a dividend this year. He would warn the Minister that by delaying the expropriation of this railway he would have to nay a larger sum. He was not asking the Government to do impossibilities. They had been informed that the assets of this railway amounted to about £1,450,000, and they had £900,000 in debentures. The Government had subsidised the line to the extent of £390,000 and in expropriating the line £300,000 would of course be deductable from the sum arranged upon. He did not think the Government would have to go into the London market to borrow money in order to acquire the line as the debenture holders, he thought, would be glad to receive Government stock at 4 per cent. Considering the population and wealth of the district, he thought if the Government could come to terms the country would be quite justified in acquiring that private line. But if the Government was not prepared to expropriate, then there was an alternative suggestion he wished to make. He found that in 1912 the branch lines on the S.A.R. cost the country £852,000. That being the case he thought the Government ought to grant immediate relief by negotiating with the company for the purpose of easier rates being charged, that was to say, the Government should subsidise the railway to the extent as between the minimum rate now charged by them and the present rates existing on the S.A.R. He did not think the amount would be very serious, and in doing so they would be showing the same amount of consideration to people in the South-western districts as they were showing to those living along the branch lines in other parts of the Union. He hoped that the Minister when replying would not dismiss this subject in a few words as he had done on previous occasions.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that it always seemed to him that that advice given to the farmers was not altogether disinterested, and that there was a little self-interest attached to it, and the townspeople were inclined to look upon the farmer as a special class which a merciful Providence had created to supply their needs. (Laughter.) If a farmer produced sufficient to exchange for the things he needed, what more was required of him? Why must a farmer be told to produce a certain thing, like bacon, for instance? (Laughter.) He thought that was tending to Socialism. (Laughter.) The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had tried to draw a comparison between that country and some other country, and left them to draw their conclusions; but if the right hon. member did that he must take all the conditions into consideration. (Hear, hear.) For instance, in the present debate he had compared that country with New Zealand, but had left out certain factors which had a very important bearing on the subject. He had left out of account the difference of climate, the difference of rainfall, the absence of a large native population in New Zealand, and other matters. He did not know whether the right hon. member had taken into consideration why a large proportion of the sheep in that country (South Africa) were not wool-producing. A large quantity of these sheep were in the hands of the natives, who did not improve the quality of the sheep. In New Zealand a man had to consider how many sheep would keep the grass down, but in the Cape a man had to consider how many acres would keep a sheep. (Laughter and cheers.) The right hon. gentleman had failed to take into consideration the difference between the distribution of population in the two countries. In New Zealand the farming population, as compared with the urban population, was rather larger than it was in the Cape Province. In New Zealand they could on their natural pasturage feed and maintain large breeds of English sheep, but in the Cape it was difficult to keep them alive, and that was why South Africa imported meat, while New Zealand exported it. As to butter, the right hon. gentleman failed to say how many of their cattle were in the hands of natives, cattle which did not produce butter. Then in that country farmers had spread themselves out, the distances were enormous, and the means of communication were very poor indeed. Therefore the farmers and the natives had bred their cattle, not so much for dairy purposes, but from the point of view of overcoming obstacles of transport. (Hear, hear.) Since the means of communication had become better, there were more dairy cattle, and a great improvement had been effected, and he hoped that that was going on. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Van der Riet) had enunciated a new theory that afternoon, which was to tax the land and then make it produce. (Laughter.) They must keep the farmer’s nose to the grindstone and make him produce. (Laughter.) As to the suggested immigration of white people into that country, it was not as easy as it looked. (Ministerial cheers.) He (Mr. Blaine) had lived in a part of the country which was as fertile and as well placed as any other part, and he had seen a good number of settlers from oversea, but to-day there were precious few of these people left. He admitted that many of the German settlers in King William’s Town and Stutterheim had been successful, although there had been more failures than successes.

He believed they had a similar problem here in the fact that at present there were something like 6,000,000 natives and 1,000,000 whites. If they did not increase the white population there would be no possibility of getting any balance between the Europeans and the non-Europeans. The Minister and his friends must realise that. He thought that members who disagreed on purely political matters were agreed that the only way of keeping South Africa in any shape or form for white civilisation was by increasing the white population. Before sitting down he could not help remarking on some statements that were made by the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, when he was dealing with railway matters. He wished to point out that from that side of the House they had for years urged upon the Minister the necessity for having some statutory definition of the powers of the Railway Board. In the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which had just come to hand, and which was signed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours as Chairman, it was stated: “The Board directs attention to the recommendation contained in section 18 of the sixth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1913, viz.: ‘Your Committee would again strongly urge, in terms of paragraph 4 of the third report of the Public Accounts Committee of last year, that on every ground it is necessary that the functions and authority of the Railway Board, and their position as contemplated by the Act of Union, should be fixed and prescribed by an Act of Parliament.’ The Commissioners recognise that it would not be in the best public interests for such definition to be too rigid in its terms, but as there is a difference of view as to the intention of the Act of Union in respect of the position, functions and authority of the Railway Board, they feel fully persuaded that it will be of advantage to the Union and conduce to more efficient railway administration if Parliament can see its way to define clearly by legislation what responsibilities and duties it desires the Railway Board to undertake.” The only way Parliament could see its way to do so would be for the Minister to bring in a Bill. The Minister did not say, in the course of his Budget speech, whether he was bringing in a Bill or not. Two years ago he promised the House definitely to bring in a measure, but they had not seen it yet. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville, dealt with the question of the number of men who had gone out of the railway works and had not been taken back. They urged upon the Minister to cut down his black list to the smallest dimensions possible.

He could not help agreeing with the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, that 82 out of 600 was an extraordinarily large number of ringleaders, and they were told that only the actual ringleaders would be punished. But he could not go with the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, when he said that grievances were piled up until there was an explosion. The hon. member knew that the leaders of his party were doing their very best to persuade the men that they had a dozen grievances, and that they must go out on strike. He did not think the hon. member for Greyville had done so, because he was more moderate than the rest of the members of the party. The hon. member then went on to allude to a speech made by Mr. John Duff, M.P.C., Labour member on the Bloemfontein Town Council. Addressing a meeting at Ficksburg, Mr. Duff said that “there was no just reason for the July strike.” This (said Mr. Struben) was what they felt. Mr. Duff went on to say that “the trouble was due to both parties losing their heads, and resulted in the spilling of innocent blood.” Mr. Struben went on to say that they cordially agreed with the statement that there was no cause for the July strike. Mr. Duff went on to say: “One man was largely to blame, and that was Mr. Poutsma.” That was what they all thought (continued Mr. iStruben). Mr. Duff went on to declare that “Mr. Poutsma had no right to declare a strike, and that such an action was against the rules of Trade Unionism, and that Mr. Poutsma acted like a Czar.” Mr. Struben went on to say that he believed there wore many men in Cape Town to-day who wished to heaven that they had never heard Mr. Poutsma’s name.

With regard to tariff adjustment, the Minister of Finance had expressed himself, when speaking at Durban some time ago, as being in favour of stability in Customs tariffs, and averse to frequent changes, as disturbing the trade of the country. From that it might have been expected that he would have come with a carefully prepared scheme, and amongst other things a schedule showing how long the present tariff was likely to run. There was no indication that a Commission would be appointed to go into the general question of tariff adjustment. Nor could they judge what changes were likely to be made in the future unless the Minister came forward with a definite policy in regard to Customs tariffs.

The hon. member went on to point out existing anomalies, citing that whilst wine farmers imported their vats duty free, the mining industry paid a 3 per cent. duty on the same class of article. He did not object to the farmer getting these articles in free, but he thought no differentiation should be shown to an equally important industry. Another inconsistency was a 12 per cent. duty on mechanical filters which it was impossible to make in this country. That being so, he thought people who required pure water should not be compelled to pay a tariff on such articles. It was one of those things which a Commission would take off the list. They were glad to see that the Minister still gave preference to British imports, because with that question was closely bound up the welfare of the Empire, and as time went on he was sure the country would increasingly recognise the enormous advantages of a reciprocal tariff. He would like to refer to a proposal made by the late Hon. Jan Hofmeyr, who was a Protectionist and at the same time a man with big Imperial ideas. He proposed that the whole Empire should put a tax of 2½ per cent. upon all goods imported from foreign countries outside the Empire, and that the money thus derived should be devoted to a defence fund for the Empire. It was the first tangible attempt to bring the King’s Dominions together for their mutual defence, but the weak point of the proposal was that as the Dominions grew stronger the less they would derive from such a tax. That was fatal to the scheme. In Australia the people, feeling that the position in the Pacific was becoming extraordinarily dangerous and complicated, and that the Admiralty at Home was vacillating, had asked for an Imperial Conference at once, and the Imperial Government had said that a Conference from all the Dominions was not possible at that moment. The Union Government seemed to be quite satisfied with things as they were. They had had no indication whatever of any further move being made by the Government to deal with that position. The upkeep of the ships alone at Simon’s Bay came to £145,000 per annum, and South Africa was only paying £85,000 per annum towards the upkeep of the Navy, while each man, woman and child in the United Kingdom had to pay over £1 per head towards the Navy. He was afraid that people in South Africa had got so used to having these things done for them that they did not realise how the burden of the Navy on the Mother Country was increasing. The only thing to do was to get an increased interest in the Navy amongst the people here, and try to arrive at some conclusion—whether they were to give some larger contribution or pay for the naval dockyard, or for the upkeep of the ships here, more commensurate with their position. The hon. member went on to say that stokers could be taken on here for the Navy, but men who wanted to become naval seamen had to be taken on in England, owing to there being no recruiting station here. Last year, he was informed, there had been 60 such applications, and one man, by the courtesy of the Union Castle Co., had been taken across, and had thus entered the Navy. The Government had done nothing to try to make it easier for men who wanted to go into the Navy to join the Navy. There was no officer here and no Board who could pass the boys before they were accepted as candidates. He thought the Government should take action in this direction. He would also ask the Minister whether the Government had come to any decision with regard to increasing our contribution to the Imperial Navy? He admitted that a purely money contribution was not a final solution of the question; but, while we had not a single shipbuilding yard here, and we had no maritime population, he maintained that the only thing the Government could do was to make some contribution of a cash character. He hoped the time was far distant, and indeed that it would never come, when this country would go in for a small fleet of its own. He was strongly of opinion that the whole matter was one that should not be put off day after day.

There was also a large amount raised from the natives by way of indirect taxation through the Customs. They had no definite data to work upon, but, taking the Cape contribution at 5s. per head, they had a contribution through indirect taxation of £379,935. If they took the remaining 2½ millions of natives at a contribution of 3s. per head they got over £375,000, giving a total for the Union of about £755,000. Directly and indirectly, he calculated that the natives contributed to the revenue of the Union about 1¾ millions. Taking the adult male natives of the Union at a uniform tax of £1 per head, they would have a sum of £935,950. The amount of 20s. per adult male native was, he thought, too high. The whole matter, to his mind, was one that required a great deal of investigation. He hoped they would have no more wild talk about equalising taxation when they had no reliable data. The hon. member for Barberton’s suggestion might bear the fruit that the Government would be led to investigate and, perhaps, in five years they might be ready for some scheme. He wanted to know how much of the 1¾ millions received from the natives went back to the natives. (Hear, hear.) Dealing with the railways and business principles, he said he did not think they meant by business principles pressing unduly on the people employed. The Government should be an example to other employers, and he thought the Administration should take a personal interest in the well-being of the railway employees. The electoral lists of the Cape Colony showed that for 1913, as compared with 1903, there was a lessening of native electors—he did not say of coloured people. The more they gave the civilised natives the same rights and privileges as the white people, whether with regard to skilled labour or in other directions the better it would be for the country. If taxation was necessary he believed that the taxation proposals of the Government were in the right direction. The land tax was a right beginning, and he hoped it might extend further; but he was afraid it might press unequally and many who ought to pay would be exempted, while others who possessed great tracts of country which was not worth very much would have to pay heavily. Closer settlement should be on the best ground, and he did not think they would ever get right until they got powers of expropriation.

Dealing with the statement that too many foodstuffs were still imported into the country, the hon. member said that to his mind the present position was due to the fact that not sufficient protection was afforded to the farmer, and the Minister might very well have carried his present proposals further. The local produce was being discouraged by the existing conditions, and he held that every possible step should be taken to encourage local industries. It might be said that the price of food would go up, but after all such a rise would only be temporary, as farmers thus assisted would soon produce sufficient for the demands of the country. The hon. member proceeded to deal with the taxation proposals, and said that from the start of Union it had been anticipated that there would be a deficit. Under the South Africa Act, railway rates were to be reduced, and naturally everyone must have seen that the surrender of large amounts of revenue in that way must have the effect of a deficit being created. And now the Minister suggested to tax the men best able to bear it. He (the hon. member) quite agreed with a proposal like that. Some thought the £1,000 limit was too high, but he did not share that opinion. Only very few well-to-do farmers would be affected by the land tax. Future taxes were the concern of future Governments, he held, and no future Government would be bound by a principle laid down now. (Hear, hear.) Touching on the native taxation proposals of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull), the hon. member said that he held that a matter of that importance could not be dealt with piecemeal. Only when the question of native and white territories had been finally settled by the Commission which was now sitting could that question be definitely decided. Continuing, the hon. member expressed his surprise at the remarks of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. B. Wessels), who had said that he had never known that the country had such a large debt. The hon. member had further said that the public of the country would certainly be alarmed when they heard of this debt. He (the hon. member) could assure the hon. member (Mr. Wessels) that there were undoubtedly large numbers of people who were aware of the position of the country’s debt. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. B. Wessels) had argued in favour of economy, but immediately after had expressed himself in favour of an additional £50,000 being spent on agricultural education. He (General Lemmer) did not agree with the suggestion that the membership of rifle clubs should be made compulsory for every citizen of the Union. He held that no compulsion should be imposed on the older citizens. On the bewaarplaatsen question, the hon. member said that he was opposed to the theory that the whole of the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen belonged to the State, and he trusted that the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) would clearly tell his constituents what bewaarplaatsen were. Referring to settlement questions, the hon. member said that he preferred the quiet policy of the Government to the “mushroom” policy of hon. members opposite, which had cost the country quite enough in the past. The amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Uitenhage was not practicable, as the hon. member for Ficksburg had clearly proved. Turning to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks), the (Speaker said it was very easy to criticise and to assume great knowledge. It was, moreover, much easier to criticise than to achieve—(hear, hear)—and the hon. member should remember that. Some hon. members had urged that the mining revenue should be used to build up other industries to take the place of the mines, when the latter were exhausted. How would hon. members provide for the deficit if that was done? he asked. As matters were, this money was in an indirect way used for the development of agriculture, because instead of there being extra taxation, people could not use the money for the development of agriculture. He could not agree with the criticism of the hon. member for Fordsburg, who had expressed disapproval of the Land Bank for lending money in order to liquidate existing mortgages. It was a very intelligent policy. They should remember that after the war many farmers had heavy mortgages on their farms, and if they were not helped they would have to leave the land and go to the towns, where they would have to compete for a living with the workmen already there. The hon. member next turned to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt), who in his remarks had, he said, attacked the Prime Minister, and had expressed his regret at the Prime Minister’s absence from the House He (the speaker) could say that the Prime Minister had not missed much. The hon. member (Mr. Fichardt) had criticised the Prime Minister for his Eighty Club speech. The hon. member had also made a speech in England, when he (Mr. Fichardt) posed before pressmen as a great Imperialist. On other occasions, however, the hon. member had taken up a very different attitude, and remarks such as those made by the hon. member could not be called straightforward. The hon. member had also advocated the abolition of the policy of preference, but whilst the speaker did not like that policy, he considered it was a matter that required very, careful consideration. On the question of Customs taxation, the hon. member said he was in favour of a tax being imposed on articles of luxury, the effect of which would be that only the man best able to bear the tax would be affected.