House of Assembly: Vol14 - FRIDAY 15 May 1914
from Shovushovu, a native post-runner, for a pension.
from voters in Victoria County and residents in Verulam, in support of the above petition of Shovushovu.
from inhabitants of Brandvlei, for telephonic or telegraphic communication with the surrounding district.
from residents of Barkly West, for removal of the “colour bar” from the Transvaal Mines, Works, and Machinery Regulations.
from inhabitants of Graaff-Reinet, for legislation providing for the direct popular vote.
from C. W. Reeks, railway fitter, for leave to contribute arrears to the pension fund.
from C. Abrahams, railway tinsmith, for leave to contribute arrears to the pension fund.
from J. C. Croxford, railway chargeman, for leave to contribute arrears to the pension fund.
from C. A Tomlin, railway fitter, for leave to contribute arrears to the pension fund.
laid upon the Table the report of the Department of the Interior for 1913, and also the report of the Trades Commissioner for the same year.
Before proceeding with the orders of the day,
said he would like to make a statement with regard to the course of the debate on the Budget. The debate had lasted a very long time, and the Government were anxious that the debate should come to a close that evening, so that he (the Minister of Finance) might move the adjournment of the debate when the customary replies made by himself and the Minister of Railways and Harbours would be given on Monday. In the event of the end of the debate not being reached by six o’clock that afternoon the Government would be prepared to move that a short recess be taken and the debate afterwards resumed, so that the adjournment of the debate might be moved that evening.
said it was impossible for him to tell how many speakers there were who still wished to take part in the debate. His hon. friend would recognise that all the members of that House had a perfect right to speak on so important a matter as the finances of the country. He begged to remind the hon. Minister that more speeches had come from that side of the House than his, and it would have been better if the Minister could have induced some of his stalwart supporters to have shortened their speeches a little. (Laughter.) He thought the Minister should have given a somewhat longer notice, as what was now suggested might interfere with the arrangements hon. members had made for the evening.
pointed out that there was nothing before the House, therefore the matter could not be discussed.
The Bill was read a first time and set down for the second reading on Monday.
moved that the Select Committee on the Workmen’s Compensation Bill consist of Messrs. Alberts, Steytler, Watermeyer, Chaplin, Baxter, Brown, Boydell, and the mover.
The motion was agreed to.
The adjourned debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure was resumed.
stated that when this debate was adjourned yesterday, the question before the House was a motion by the Minister of Finance: That the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending 31st March, 1915, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbours Funds, respectively.
Upon which the following amendments had been moved, viz.:
To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “this House views with alarm the increase of poverty among large numbers of the population, the prevailing acute pressure of unemployment and the continued emigration of large numbers of white citizens from the Union. It is of opinion that one of the principal causes of these evils is the continued importation of cheap indentured Kafir labour and the general policy of basing South African industrial development on a quasi servile labour system, and it regrets that the Government has not seen fit to introduce legislation having for its object the reversal of the present pernicious tendencies.”
To omit all the words after “That”, and to substitute “the Estimates of Expenditure be referred back to the Government for revision and reduction with a view to avoiding the necessity of imposing any unnecessary taxation.”
To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “the Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to report within one week as to the best method of bringing about an equalisation between Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1914-15; the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of eleven members.”
thanked the Minister of Finance for giving at least some of the back-benchers an opportunity of expressing their views on the Budget. (Laughter.) The Minister in his Budget Speech seemed to be very sure and certain that the financial state of the country was in a sound position. Well, he (Mr. Hen wood) felt a little bit like the Scotchman when he said, “I hae me doots.”
(Laughter.) The Minister came with a deficit of £961,000 and also made suggestions about taxing the tea and coffee of the poor people, did that, he asked, denote a sound position?
In regard to our indebtedness, they had been told that our indebtedness in round figures was £125,000,000. When we came into Union our debt was £116,508,000. The Minister had compared the indebtedness per head in this country with that in New Zealand and Australia, and had shown that the amount per head here was less than it was in either New Zealand or Australia, but he had overlooked the fact that, while our indebtedness had increased by over two millions a year during the past four years, there had been no increase in the white population. If the Government did not bring forward some policy so as to open up fresh avenues for an increase of the white population in this country, there was no doubt that the time was not far distant when our indebtedness per head would have overtaken that of Australia and New Zealand. They were told that of this total debt of £125,000,000 an amount of £80,000,000 had been expended on railways, and yet the railways practically had no sinking fund. Now if it were a sound policy to have a sinking fund for our ordinary public debt, surely it was right to have a sinking fund for our railway loans. He noticed that about £9,000,000 would fall due during the next eight or nine years from our present loans. That money would have to be raised and there was no doubt that large sums for railway and other public purposes would be required in the near future, and he was convinced that if we had a sinking fund in connection with the railways it would be possible to borrow at a lower rate of interest than would otherwise be the case. He noticed that on the last year’s Railway Estimates there was a deficit of, he believed, £238,520. That amount was to be recovered from what was called the Rates Equalisation Fund. He noticed that at the end of the financial year that fund stood at £355,000, so that during the past four years it had been built up by setting aside about £90,000 per annum. But the first year when they got a small loss on the railways it almost absorbed the whole of the fund. He maintained that that fund should stand at at least £750,000. Any disturbance of the railway rates upset the trade of the country.
Taking the present Estimates, he noticed that the Minister estimated that there would be a loss during the coming year of £66,000. In a large earning and spending department like the railway that might seem to be rather a small sum, but, when they looked into the matter in detail, they found a somewhat alarming state of things.
There was to be a decreased contribution to superannuation fund to the extent of £60,000. He had always understood that to a fund like that they would have made a fixed contribution every year, and that it would not be used as a kind of plaything. Then the vote for strengthening and renewing the permanent way and bridges was to be reduced by £173,623. It was difficult to know how the department would require that amount less during the coming year. There was also to be £200,000 less in the way of special contribution to depreciation fund, £400,000 less to betterment fund, and other amounts had also been mentioned by the Minister in the way of decreased contributions, making altogether an amount of £937,000 less set aside this year. He thought the House would agree that the financial position, as far as the railways were concerned, was not a satisfactory one. Proceeding, the hon. member said he hoped he would be pardoned by the House if he became parochial or provincial. He wanted to refer to the railway rates, and more particularly the coal rates. He drew attention to the disparity between the rates at which coal was conveyed from Witbank to Cape Town, and the rates from the coalfields in Natal to the coast, and remarked that they did not object to coal being carried as cheaply as possible, but they felt that it should not be carried at a loss that had to be made up by other sections of the line. They in Natal claimed that they were entitled to similar treatment. The matter was doubly hard upon Natal, because for many years they had built up their coal trade against the imported trade. They had captured that trade, and now it was taken from Natal and handed over to the Transvaal. He also thought it was not right that, as a result of the coal rates in Natal, 5s. more per ton was charged for coal consumed locally by the taxpayers of the country than for coal supplied to ships calling from time to time.
He thought every fair-minded man would admit there was something wrong, and he hoped that the Minister would look into this question of coal rates. During that debate a good deal had been rightly said about their mineral revenue being a diminishing asset. He would not take an altogether pessimistic view of the situation, because he was one who believed that this country had only been scratched so far as minerals were concerned, and that in the future more would be found. It was only right, however, that they should try and build up some wealth to take the place of this diminishing asset, and that could only be done by the development of agriculture. Agriculture, however, could not be furthered unless they had more railways, so as to enable the producers to get into quick touch with the consumers. Here there was opposition on the part of the inland people, who said that these branch lines did not pay, and that they had to bear the burden. He pointed out that in the past the coast people shouldered the burden when they were pushing the rail into the interior, and so he thought all should share this burden. But it was no good building railways to parts of the country where there was uncertain rainfall or where there was no irrigation scheme, and in this connection he was glad to notice that there was a substantial sum down on the Estimates for irrigation works. This would be money well spent. Then he thought that new rolling stock should be built in the Union. The Minister had said they had to go abroad when they wanted things in a hurry, and without being rude he thought it showed a lack of foresight, because they should not allow their rolling stock to get into such a condition that they had to get new stock in a hurry. Rolling stock built in this country would cost more, but plenty of work would be provided, and the money would be spent in this country. He alluded to the case of the Durban Corporation in connection with the construction of tramcars. They were met by the same arguments as had been advanced by the Minister, but the building of these cars in the town had been most beneficial. Dealing with Durban Harbour, he referred to what had appeared in the papers, and said he hoped the Minister in his reply would detail the position and make it clear to the House what the Government were doing. After hoping that the Railway Administration would soften its heart towards the 82 ringleaders who were out of work, the hon. member, touching upon the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage, said he could not vote for the proposal. Once in Natal they were faced with a similar position, and the Estimates were referred to various committees. Instead of decreasing the Estimates they came back increased by £100,000. That might easily occur in this case.
said that after having listened to all the objections which had been raised against the Budget, and after having heard all the criticism, he would say that he was pleased not to be responsible for the introduction of the Budget. (Laughter.) When in the past the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), had been in office and he (the speaker) and others had criticised him, they had been told that he (Sir E. H. Walton) was going to administer the country—and similarly he (the speaker) now held that it was the Government’s duty to administer the country, and that the responsibility rested on the Government. He thought it was difficult, after all these years, now all of a sudden to feel and realise that they were in one country now and to forget Provincial boundaries. He had one grievance, and that was that the Cape was sometimes somewhat neglected by the Government. (Laughter.) He was pleased that the Government wished to end that debate to-day. (Hear, hear.) It was the Government’s duty not to take account of the Opposition or the cross-benches; the Government in the first place had to take account of its own party, and to keep the peace there. (Hear, hear.) And, therefore, the Government should never try to pass any measures which were not acceptable to its own side. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member went on to deal with certain remarks made by members of the Opposition, and said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was really not a friend of the agriculturist. The hon. member Only looked at the requirements of Cape Town, and at the business of Messrs. Jagger and Co.—(Laughter)—and he did not in any way consider the requirements of the country population, out of whom Messrs. Jagger and Co. had to make their profits.
You should not get personal.
Oh, I am referring to the business, not to the person. (Laughter. ) The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, Mr. Schoeman went on, had not given that thought to the farmers which he should do, and it was really surprising that a man of his business ability should take up an attitude like that. The hon. member should have favoured a policy under which farmers, for instance, could obtain their guano as cheaply as possible, so that they could increase the production of the country. (Hear, hear.) If they exported the guano, they would get more money perhaps but the railways, the development of the country and business generally would suffer in consequence. The Leader of the Opposition, when listening to the speeches of his supporters, must often feel highly amused. (Laughter.) The remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. W. D. Baxter), for instance, did not denote any great knowledge of farming conditions. The hon. member (Mr. Baxter) had possibly seen a good deal of the world, but he (the speaker) had also seen a great deal, and he could say that the best class of farmers was found in South Africa. (Cheers.) In other countries one was not faced with the position which one found here. Elsewhere one might find people working on small areas of ground, which had been under cultivation for years, while here in South Africa the farmer had to fight his way on enormous tracts of land, of ten or fifteen thousand morgen, which he had to cultivate himself.
If farmers from other countries were faced with similar conditions, there would be a different tale. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Baxter), had told the House of the six million farmers in America But the hon. member had not told them how large the population of America was. The population amounted to 81,751,958 whites and about 9,000,000 coloured persons. Of those some 6,000,000 were farmers. South Africa, on the other hand, had a population of 1,267,242 whites, of which 329,000 were males. More than half of the white population lived on the land. He (the speaker) held, therefore, that, comparatively speaking, South Africa had more farmers than America. He quite agreed that they wanted more people in this country, but immigration was a question which they should deal with most carefully. In the first place, they should see to it that they created markets for the people they wanted to place on the land. America’s and Canada’s immigration policies had been successful simply because they had the necessary markets. South Africa’s time would come, because South Africa was one of the most glorious countries in the world. (Hear, hear.) If they wanted to make a success of closer settlement in this country, they should first of all go in for large irrigation works—(cheers)—and that was the view the Government was taking. Any man could live here on five morgen, so long as he had the water. But there was another difficulty—every man here wanted to be a rich man, and wanted to live above his means. That was where the trouble started. In a country like this every man could make a living. The hon. member went on to deal with railway matters, and referred to the high rates on the N.C.C. Railways, and said that the South-Western Districts were suffering a crying injustice as a result. When Union had been brought about here, he thought that they were going to have equal taxes and equal railway rates. Had it not been for the fact that in the South-West they had men who were prepared to help themselves in railway matters, there would have been trouble. (Cries of “No.”) But the South-Western Districts had now suffered long enough, and he trusted that they would receive justice during the coming recess. If the Government considered that the South-West was not a part of the Union, let them then be allowed to secede from the Union, and govern themselves. (Laughter.) They could ask the Government to do something, but they were always told that there was no money. In the olden days they had asked for new public buildings at Oudtshoorn, where there were holes in the floor. An amount was placed on the Estimates for new buildings, but the buildings had not materialised. In conclusion, he urged the Government in matters of taxation to take into consideration the opinions of the country as a whole, as well as of the party.
said he wished to express his approval of the taxation measures which had been introduced by the Government. He had not heard any very serious objections to the income tax, therefore they might dismiss that question without argument. Certain objections had been brought against the imposition of a land tax, and it might perhaps be possible for the Minister to alter the tax in such a manner as to make it more acceptable. He (Mr. Neser) had felt that taxation had been coming on for some time now. He had told his constituents that fresh taxation was going to be imposed, and that the only fair taxes that could be levied were an income tax and a land tax. He had held many public meetings and in other ways had come in contact with a considerable proportion of his constituents, and in not a single case had there been a vote given against these taxes. He had also told them that he was in favour of the tax upon all land that was not beneficially occupied, and for his part he would tax a less quantity than 10,000 morgen that was not beneficially occupied. In fact he would tax all land that was not in useful occupation.
What is “beneficially occupied ”?
We can easily find a way out of that difficulty.
So as not to pay! (Laughter.)
said that those who did not make use of their land should be made to contribute very considerably to the revenue of the country. Referring to the figures in the Budget, he had noticed amongst the increases an amount of £205,000 for the service of the Public Debt. Then there was a sum of £49,000 under the head of Defence, while a further increase went to the police of £62,000. He thought nobody would be found to disagree with these increases, particularly in regard to the amount for police protection, for which there were calls from all parts of the country. Then the posts and telegraphs showed an increase of £95,000. That was necessary for the development of the country, and they should not cramp the country for the sake of an expenditure of that amount. Then the Provincial Council administration had cost £115,000 more than last year. That was, of course, a direct result of the Financial Relations Bill.
Who passed that Bill? Your side.
said there had also been an increase of £5,000 for higher education, and he wished it had been as much more. These items together with several smaller amounts made up a halfmillion deficit, and he did not think any hon. member of that House had made a good case of extravagance against the Government, and for that reason he would vote for the policy of taxation as put forward by the Minister of Finance. He cordially approved of the arguments of the hon. members for Victoria County and Barkly West that we should establish a sinking fund for our railways. (Hear, hear.) According to the present rate of expenditure we were paying over £3,000,000 a year on railway debts. So long as those payments continued so long would high railway rates remain. Under the Act of Union it was laid down that all losses on the railways must come out of the Railways and Harbours Fund. Consequently unless the interest charges could be reduced there was a fear of railway construction being stopped, unless we were prepared to pay the loss on railways out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Minister of Finance should consider if he could not gradually wipe out the annual payment of £456,000 now being made by the Railway Department on dead capital, and applying that £456,000 to the Railway Sinking Fund. An effort should be made to wipe out this railway debt.
A few days ago he saw that a man had invented a flying train in England. That might be a chimerical idea, but improvements took place every day, and he should not be surprised if before many years were over we had to scrap our railways, and then we should be saddled with a debt of £95,000,000. He thought they should earnestly apply themselves to a scheme to wipe out the railway debt.
Reverting to the proposed land tax, Mr. Neser said he had stated that he most cordially approved of that tax, yet, on the other hand, he must express some disappointment that the Minister of Finance had not gone further in regard to taxation. He had singled out a few items in the Customs tariff for protection. Frankly, he (Mr. Neser) preferred to see a protective tariff from start to finish. Let them tax the land, but let them at the same time make it possible for the people living on the land to pay these taxes. They saw that every protective country was flourishing today.
No. (Hear, hear.)
I am speaking about British colonies. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, and Germany—they are all flourishing.
Are they?
Yes, and another thing is that they are overtaking the British manufacturer.
Are they? Don’t you believe it.
said that some years ago he attended a Congress of the Chambers of Commerce in England, and he was very much struck by a speech made by Colonel Denison, who told them that in 1875 or 1876 Canada was down in the dumps. A few of them met together, they buried all political strife and contention, and they started a national party and a national policy, and put on protection, and, instead of people fleeing from Canada, they were flocking there now. (Ministerial cheers.) They saw shiploads of people passing our shores every week, and yet we had a country that could take them all. The hon. member for Riversdale, when he attacked the hon. member for Pretoria North yesterday, in reference to the protection on cement, did not state the case properly.
What the hon. member for Pretoria North wanted to see was the protection of cement by the Customs tariff and the abolition of the preferential railway rate. This preferential railway rate was an iniquitous thing. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member quoted figures to show that, in consequence of the operation of the preferential railway rates, the rates over a distance of 300 miles were considerably higher in the Transvaal and Free State for a number of articles than they were in the Cape. He pointed out that there were similar discrepancies in some of the Natal rates. Sugar, for instance, had a preference of £2 11s. 3d. in railway rates and £3 10s. duty, giving a preference of £6 1s. 3d. He was not complaining about this. The only thing was that he said they should do away with the preferential railway rates and put on duty. Inland they were eating Natal sugar and Cape flour, while the people at the coast were eating imported sugar and imported flour, and all because of this preferential railway rate. It was all the time up against them in the interior. How was it possible that the interior was to go on in this fashion? The Act of Union provided that the railways should be run with due regard to the development of an agricultural and industrial population in the interior. Was it possible, when they were saddled with anomalies and inequalities of this description, that they could flourish? He asked the Minister of Railways most seriously to take this into consideration. He would also ask him to reconsider the coal rate. He knew the Minister had stated over and over again that it was impossible to reduce the coal rate. He thought the Minister of Finance should give back this £456,000, and then he could reduce the rates. The hon. member for Greyville had pointed out how little the State got from the mines. He (Mr. Neser) submitted that they ought to encourage the mines by all means in their power to produce as much as possible, and tax them on their output. The Minister had proposed a sliding scale on income; on the same principle he could introduce a sliding scale on the profits of mining. The mining companies should be encouraged by giving them cheap coal. The tax of 10 per cent. bore exceedingly heavy on some poor mines, although the poor mines contributed quite as much to the welfare of the country as the rich mines. He contended that it was their duty, as far as possible, to encourage the poor mines, and also to encourage industries.
said he was not a financial expert, but all the same he wished to make a few remarks. The financial experts, however, seemed to differ very materially as to the position of the country. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. members had dealt with agricultural matters, and strong criticisms had been levelled against the Government on various matters, a good deal of which criticism he held was not honest. He was extremely pleased yesterday to have heard the practical views of the hon. member for Border, who had spoken as a practical farmer. The views of the hon. member for Albany were most peculiar, he held, and certainly showed that that hon. member did not know much about agriculture. It reminded him of the admonition to the shoemaker to “stick to his last.” It was clear that the hon. member had not done that. “Tax the land,” he argued, and its produce would be increased. Turning to the hon. member for Ladybrand, Mr. Venter said that apparently that hon. gentleman went from extreme to extreme, seeing that last year he had held that the Civil Servants did not receive sufficient salary. Now, however, he again held that the Government was wasting money. If they were to accept as serious what the hon. member had said about them, the field-cornets in the Free State must be very peculiar people. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Fauresmith had said that these taxation proposals constituted the thin end of the wedge, and that the Government was trying to lay down a foundation now on which to build next year. He (the speaker) thought the Government was honest in its intentions—(hear, hear)—and although he did not like the land tax, he could see the Government’s dilemma. As to the remarks that the Prime Minister had not attacked the Opposition as strongly as the hon. member for Barberton, and as to the allegation that the Government was sitting with its arms round the neck of the Opposition, Mr. Venter said that he could quite understand the attitude of the Prime Minister.
After all, the Opposition was the open enemy of the Government, while the hon. member for Barberton was a traitor to his party, who was continually attacking the Government in the back—and people like that should always be strongly dealt with. (Cheers.) It ought to be remembered that the Government had reduced taxation by nearly £4,000,000. The railway tariffs had been materially lowered, and estate duty had been reduced by half. On the other hand they had spent on defence £700,000 and on education £500,000 extra. Touching on agricultural matters, the hon. member said that according to speeches of members opposite, the South African farmer was the most miserable individual one could think of Let members, however, look at the position immediately after the war, and compare that position with the present. He held that there was no country in the world which in ten years had made so much progress as this country. (Hear, hear.) Members should realise that agriculture was a permanent industry, and in these circumstances attacks such as those on the Land Bank were unjustifiable. In regard to the poor whites question, Mr. Venter urged that a strong attempt should be made by the Government to deal with this problem. He regretted in regard to irrigation that nothing had been done in the North-East of the Cape, where there were great possibilities of land settlement. Dealing with the Indwe coal question, Mr. Venter pointed out that the population near Indwe on the coal mines had been placed on the property of the company working the mine. If the Government contract was stopped it would mean that a large number of people would be thrown into the streets. He trusted, therefore, the Government would not take any action such as had been suggested. The railway in that part had been built from Sterkstroom to Indwe with the object of carrying the coal. There was, of course, a possibility of the coal giving out at some future date. A deviation of the present line had been agreed to by a former Government, and the public of Dordrecht would not rest until the deviation was completed. As a matter of fact, the people of Dordrecht were prepared to guarantee any deficit. Touching on the taxation proposals, the hon. member said that he had prepared his constituents long ago for fresh taxation. The import duty he considered the fairest of all, and he especially considered that a heavy tax should be placed on articles which could be produced and manufactured here; and he was sorry that such import duties had not been made heavier. (Hear, hear.) As to the income tax, he regretted that these people who had caused all the trouble would not be affected at all. On the other hand, he saw that if the limit was placed low, the poor farmer who had to work 14 hours a day would suffer, and therefore he agreed with the proposal. In regard to the land tax, although he did not like it, the hon. member said that he thought there was much to be said in favour of the attempt to “catch” the large land companies which kept the land locked up, and he thought the proposal of the Government might have the effect of a good deal of the land now locked up being placed in the market. Referring to the taxation proposals of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull), the hon. member said that he could not agree with a suggestion which aimed at taxing the natives as soon as the slightest difficulties presented themselves. It was impossible, in regard to the question of equalisation, to take up the matter piecemeal, and when equality was essayed it would be necessary to remember the land tax in the Cape. He hoped the Estimates would be agreed to, and he could not see how the Government could have acted differently in the interests of the country.
A few changes would be necessary in the proposed Customs tariff.
said that it seemed, from the way in which members on the Ministerial side were interrupted, as if there were four Oppositions, instead of one Opposition. As to the taxation proposals of the Government, lie only regretted he did not fall under them, as if he did he would be a well-to-do man. He did not see why there should be all that opposition to these proposals. As to the proposed Pretoria-Middelburg-Lydenburg railway, he hoped that there would be a thorough investigation, so that each district could be best served by that railway. He drew attention to the necessity for telephones in parts of his district, and also referred to the drought in the Cape and Free State. If the Government could do anything to help the people there, it should be done.
said certain charges had been made from all parts of the House, and he would be failing in his duty if he did not reply to them. A large number of members, in referring to the enormous expenditure due to the disturbances, repeatedly accused the Labour members of being responsible for that expenditure. He felt his position very keenly in this matter, for he never thought that charges of that description would be thrown at his head, and he resented them. They should all try to bring about such a condition of affairs as to prevent a repetition of national waste, but the real cause of this enormous expenditure, more especially that incurred last July, was—according to the report of the Witwatersrand Disturbances Commission—due to the management of a certain gold mine in failing to obey the spirit of the law. In regard to the January disturbances, the Government entered on a policy of retrenchment. He would not say whether that retrenchment was right or wrong, but the Government had no right to go in for retrenchment at that particular time. At that time there was throughout the whole world an enormous amount of industrial unrest, largely due to the great increase in the cost of living. That unrest spread to South Africa, and on the top of that the Government entered on a policy of retrenchment at a time when people’s minds were in such a state that they would have resented anything. Since Union the Railway Department had sent overseas for £3,000,000 worth of rolling stock. The railwaymen asked, “Why should Government send these enormous orders oversea and at the same time cast us on the streets?” The workers naturally thought it was a policy of vindictiveness on the part of the Government in throwing men out of employment, and that was what the workers resented. The Government was largely responsible for this enormous expenditure during the past 12 months. (Hear, hear.) The result had been unemployment and under-employment, for in addition to men on the Rand having been thrown out of work, on the railways men were working overtime. Was such a condition of affairs fair, and did it make for contentment? In many industries, as a result of this unrest, men were compelled to work long hours for a miserable wage, and all this because the railways had been administered on the wrong tack. The Minister of Finance, in drawing his very lurid picture of the conditions of things in South Africa, told the House that the whole idea of the Government should be in the direction of reducing the cost of living. But the Minister was not consistent, because he proposed to put taxes on food. The report of the Trades and Industries Commission contained some very misleading statements as to the cost of living. For instance, it was said that in Cape Town a white artisan could get a three-roomed house for 55s. a month. He would like to know where that could be got. The Commission also stated that a four-roomed house at Woodstock, suitable for a white artisan, could be hired for 40s. a month. These statements would be nearer the mark if the rents were increased by 33 per cent. The schedule contained in the Commission’s report as to cost of living was absolutely wrong, and in every instance the prices were underestimated. If the Minister of Finance had based his Estimates on these figures it was time the Budget were revised. In this country many would naturally ask why should that enormous cost of living exist? To his mind there was only one answer, and that was the way the land was locked up in this country. With regard to the matter of immigration, he was rather like the Irishman, he was against it and not against it. In the Transvaal there were 120,000 poor whites, and throughout all the Provinces of South Africa there was a large army of unemployed. He was going to oppose immigration so long as they had such an army of poor whites and unemployed in this country. (Hear, hear.) But was there no remedy for that state of affairs? There was room in this country for all. There were enormous expanses of territory sufficient to supply the needs of countless millions, but they would not develop the country in that direction by the policy which had been pursued for many years past. He was glad to hear hon. members put forth the merits of New Zealand and Australia, for the party to which he belonged had had a great influence in the progress of the colonies referred to. But Australia had come through periods of depression just as they had in South Africa. It had been said that we in this country did not have the same rainfall. Well, he would admit that New Zealand had a splendid rainfall, but there was a splendid rainfall within 100 miles of Cape Town, and close upon the railways. The Australians recognised that New Zealand was going to prosper by their policy of unlocking the land, they realised that they, too, must unlock their land, and he (Mr. Maginess) urged that the future of South Africa also depended on the breaking up of the land.
Turning to railway matters, Mr. Maginess said that the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours in his remarks on the Budget referred to a speech he delivered in Johannesburg in relation to the youth of South Africa, and cast certain aspersions on some of the youths here which called forth uncomplimentary comment so far as the Minister was concerned, but he believed what the Minister said on that occasion. He (Mr. Maginess) had had some experience of the youths of South Africa, and he thought that what the Minister had said was not strong enough language. On that occasion the Minister had tried to show the people the responsibility of the country so far as the youths were concerned. He believed in the policy of the Minister of Railways, who was going to place opportunities in the way in order to encourage South African youths to get into those positions of trust and eminence which South Africans should enjoy in this country instead of their having to import men from overseas to fill important positions to the detriment of South Africans. Their duty should be to the youths of South Africa, and he was delighted at the attitude of the Minister of Railways so far as technical education was concerned, but he (Mr. Maginess) did not believe that night classes did any good, and he thought there should be a system whereby the youths who showed special aptitude and ability should be allowed to attend classes some afternoons during the week. The Minister should pick out the boys from the workshops with higher aptitude and encourage them td attend the technical schools during the day so that they could take their proper place and compete successfully with oversea men. That “sandwich ” system, as it was called, had proved to be very successful in America and in Germany; it had been taken up in England also, and if it were adopted in South Africa it would be a splendid thing for the youths and the country. Proceeding, the hon. member said there had been a cry right throughout that debate about the enormous expenditure which had taken place in this country. There seemed to be an idea that the colonies came into Union for the purpose of reducing expenditure, but he believed it was for a far better purpose. They had just passed through a terrible war. There seemed to be a great amount of race prejudice existing, and the principal reason he believed why they unified at that time was to try to bring those contending forces together, in order to build up a great South African nation.
said that after so many mistakes had been made by the great financial experts, he would not venture into the intricacies of finance. (Laughter.) He thought that he could congratulate the Minister, seeing that no better suggestions than those of the Minister had been put before the House. In regard to defence matters, Mr. Alberts thought a change should be brought about in the training and such matters connected with rifle clubs. Experience was showing that, unless certain changes were brought about, the rifle clubs would cease to exist. At present there was no compulsion for anyone, except those who had to follow a four years’ course, to join rifle clubs. He thought that up to a certain age people falling under the Defence Act should be required to join rifle clubs. Proceeding, Mr. Alberts urged the introduction of a Consolidated Railway Compensation Act. The speaker pointed out that, at present, if a fire was caused by passing trains, people, in order to obtain compensation, had to prove certain details; they had to be in a position even to give the number of the engine causing the fire. The hon. member referred to a case in which a farmer who had suffered damage through fire had been granted damages by a lower Court; a higher Court reversed this judgment, and so it went on until the Appellate Court decided against the farmer, who was thus put to very heavy expense. He trusted the Minister would look into this whole matter. In regard to the criticism of the land settlement policy levelled at the Government by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, he trusted the Minister would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the whole position. Dealing with the poor whites question, Mr. Alberts said it appeared to him that certain members on his side of the House were trying to make political capital out of this question. This he regretted exceedingly. The fact was that there were many classes of poor whites, and that made the question an extremely difficult one. He hoped the Government would be able to submit a sound solution of the problem to this House, but he trusted that no scheme would be submitted which would have the effect of the poor whites being spoon-fed. A policy of that kind could only have the most detrimental effects, and he held that any plan should aim at making these people independent, and helping them to improve their social position and maintain their self-respect. There was a class of people which with only a little assistance would be able to get on. There were, however, others who would require to be placed in labour colonies. Such labour colonies, he urged, should be placed under proper and sympathetic control. (Hear, hear.) Then there was a further class—the class which had already drifted into a state of indifference, people who cared little or not what became of them and who were prepared to let matters find their own economic solution.
In dealing with questions like this all party and personal considerations should be set aside. He held that legislation should be introduced to provide that every able-bodied man should be enabled to earn his living. (Hear, hear.) He had no time for loafers and, therefore, he held that reformatories should be created to which vagrants should be sent. Referring to agricultural matters, Mr. Alberts urged the necessity of good agricultural experts, and he held that all the criticisms notwithstanding, good agricultural colleges should be established where experts could be trained. They wanted good brains for agriculture, he reminded the House. (Hear, hear.) Turning to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who, he said, was one of the ablest members of the House, Mr. Alberts expressed his regret that the hon. member was so opposed to farmers. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, should realise that if the farming community prospered the whole country, and consequently Mr. Jagger’s business must prosper Proceeding, he held that facilities should be provided so as to enable farmers to take the sheep to the winter veld. Under the new Transvaal Ordinance under which farmers could close up their land, farmers were unable to trek with their sheep, and he trusted the Government would carefully look into this. Very little had been done so far for sheep farmers, and he held that, seeing the dimensions of the wool industry, something should be done. He held the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, in regard to guano and artificial fertilisers, to the effect that the Government ought to get £30,000 more for it were unjust. The farming position was in such a condition at present as to require every possible encouragement, and therefore it was essential that guano should be carried over the railways free of charge.
He was pleased to see, Mr. Alberts went on, that the Minister was trying to encourage the leather industry. He trusted, however, that industries for the manufacture of agricultural implements would be encouraged as much as possible as the prices of imported agricultural implements were too heavy. He also hoped that the law in regard to co-operative societies would be amended, as the present provisions were impossible in many respects. For instance, a change in the articles of association had to win the support of two-thirds of the members, and that was often impossible. Touching on the taxation proposals, Mr. Alberts said he wished to express his agreement with the Minister’s proposals. He was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Ficksburg, who had said that he was pleased the Government did not wish to make a party question of this. Surely, if anything was a party question, then the question of taxation was one, it was a question by which Governments stood or fell. Although he would not say that no detailed alterations could be made later on, he wished to state that he quite agreed with the principle of the new proposals. (Hear, hear.)
said that during the first part of the debate and among the first flight of financial critics were included a dozen or so members of the old Cape House. Three of them were ex-Treasurers, and owing to the hard times through which they had passed they had become pessimists, and would remain so for the rest of their political lifetime. While he admitted that their criticisms were valuable, their pessimism resolved itself into a proposal to send the Estimates back to the Government for revision. They who came from other parts of the country and who had not passed through these bad times could not support such a proposal.
The hon. member, who was almost inaudible at times, proceeded to refer to the proposal to refer the Estimates to the Select Committee, with which he said he disagreed. He agreed with what another hon. member had said that afternoon that in Natal it had led to an increased expenditure. As to the Budget, it had been criticised for being too extravagant, but unless they could convict it of being extravagant in detail, he did not think they could convict it as a whole. He had distinctly reminded his constituents that Natal and the Cape had removed their income taxes, and that a part of the South Africa Act was that there was to be a great reduction of taxation by the remission of railway rates, and that they could not possibly expect the Government of the country to be carried on in that manner for any length of time, and that to meet the deficiencies caused by the remission of that taxation, other taxes would have to be imposed which would be general throughout the Union. There was nothing unexpected about the taxation which had now been proposed, and it was not so heavy as they had been led to anticipate. As to the Customs tariff, he confessed that he was disappointed.
Dealing with the sugar planters, he was understood to say that they did not get the full benefit of the preference. As to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), had said about the duties on sugar interfering with the manufacture of jam in that country, he would like to point out what the position in Australia was, where there was a much heavier duty on sugar, and yet Australian jam was eaten in South Africa.
Coming to the question of land settlement, he must say that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had been a little ungenerous in the way he had handled the present Minister of Lands. There had been little lack of chivalry on his part when he remembered that before that session commenced the present Minister of Lands had only been ten or twelve weeks in office.
The Ministers can take care of themselves.
You don’t mind me making these remarks, do you? (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that he wanted to pay a tribute to the interest which had been taken in his constituency by the late Mr. Fischer, who had no sooner passed the Land Settlement Act than, within a week of the close of the session, he had gone to Zululand, looking into matters for himself. He had taken the trouble to go to Umvolosi, which was said to be a malarial district, and therefore land settlement had not taken place there. Mr. Fischer had taken the evidence of the people who lived in the neighbourhood, and arranged that that land should be settled; and it had been successfully settled. They would now find a considerable number of men there who had settled down on a hundred morgen of land, and the crops would amount to 50,000 or 60,000 tons of cane, and he thought that in the next three years they would produce three times that amount. If hon. members would only take the trouble to go along the coast of Zululand, they would see land settlement which had never been surpassed in South Africa, and which should deserve the sympathy and support of that House. (Hear, hear.) There appeared to be an idea in that House, and it was said, that all sugar planters were men rolling in wealth. They could, however, count the very rich sugar planters on the fingers of one hand, and hundreds of them were small men who did a lot of hard work and earned the sympathy of all those who knew what they were doing. (Hear, hear.) From that time until Mr. Fischer’s death settlement had been going on in Zululand. It had been going on from Empangeni right up along the coast. Land had been allotted for dairy and mixed farming purposes; they had the whole country occupied, and were pressing further and further north. The present Minister of Lands had laid out further plots still, so that he (Mr. Clayton) felt justified in saying that a great deal was being done as far as his constituency was concerned in the way of land settlement. The extent of land granted to settlers was not very large, and they were all small holdings, and with a few exceptions, there was nothing exceeding 500 morgen in the whole of Zululand. Along the coast 155 holdings had been allotted, amounting to 96,400 acres, the value being £125,000 Further inland 77 holdings had been allotted, of an acreage of 52,000, and valued at £30,000. Under the 99 years’ lease seven holdings had been allotted, of an acreage of 3,540, and an annual rental of £176. That proved that where land had been available, the Government had been doing something and the great difficulty that they had to encounter was to procure suitable land. In the North-West and elsewhere in the Union a great deal of preparation was necessary before large areas of land were suitable for settlement, and the large amount of success which had attended land settlement in his constituency was due to the railway running along the north coast of Natal. We wanted to go carefully and be in earnest about the matter. We did not want to have a repetition of the failures in land settlement which had occurred in the Transvaal and Natal, and also, so he was told, in the Cape. If we went slowly, carefully, and earnestly to work, he believed we could make a success of land settlement. In Canada railway construction had preceded land settlement, but in South Africa before railways were built the districts which were to benefit thereby had been expected to prove that their productions would warrant the expense of constructing a rail way. He believed there was a great future for South Africa—(hear, hear)—and that there was no room whatever for pessimism, although there was room for caution in the matter of expenditure. When people were satisfied that we were progressing, and they felt sure that they would get the benefit of taxation, there would be no resentment and they would gladly pay their share of the taxes. (Cheers.)
said he was not one of those who had told their constituents that there would be no fresh taxation. As a matter of fact, he had anticipated taxes. He could not understand how anyone could regard the taxation proposals as unexpected, seeing the amount which of late years had been surrendered in railway tariffs. He could not agree with the criticism that the Government had been extravagant, and he wished to point out that the criticisms were very much out of place, especially in view of the fact that practically every hon. member was continually urging the Government to spend money in one way or another. He certainly could not agree to any retrenchment of officials, and, in fact, not a single speaker had told the House where they could do with a clerk less or with a magistrate less. Touching on defence matters, Mr. Van der Merwe urged that those members of rifle clubs who, during the July and January troubles, had been supplied with rifles, should be allowed to keep their rifles. Apparently there had not been sufficient rifles and ammunition to supply all the burghers with. There had been some dissatisfaction, too, owing to the fact that members of rifle associations did not in all cases receive rifles, whilst others who were not members did obtain them. He also held there should be an amendment in the Defence Act, so as to make it compulsory for every citizen up to a certain age to join a rifle club. Proceeding, Mr. Van der Merwe said that last year £950 had been placed on the Estimates for an experimental station at Vredefort, which was a rich tobacco district. This station had not been built, and he hoped the Minister of Agriculture would carry out the promise given last year. He also hoped the Minister would take steps for the extermination of noxious weeds throughout the country. They found the “boete bosje” growing luxuriantly on some Government lands, and they were a great danger to the whole district. On the question of land settlement, he held some progress should be made with the settlement of poor whites on the land. Provision had been made in the law, and the law should be carried out. According to the report of the Director of Irrigation, there was room for 250 settlers in Kopjes, whereas at present there were only 74 settlers now. Dealing with the carriage of grain, Mr. Van der Merwe said that grain which was placed on the railways in good condition was often condemned on arrival at its destination. He urged that provision should be made to have this matter attended to. The hon. member went on to complain that, although on various occasions he had booked his seat on the train, his seat was not booked when he arrived at the station. This was a serious inconvenience, which he held should be looked into.
said a question which often troubled him was whether the country got good value for its expenditure. The Defence Force, he held, was an absolute necessity; but his experience as Districts Officer had shown him that the carrying out of the Act was not in order. There were certain points in the Act which required amending. One serious failing was that insufficient provision was made for the proper arming of the burghers. Of 540 burghers whom he had to call to arms during the recent disturbances, there were actually only 100 of them who had rifles. It was quite time that they were properly armed. He held, further, that every citizen of the country should be compulsorily trained for the defence of the country, by being required to join the rifle associations. The voluntary system had proved to be a failure. In reference to the taxation proposals, Mr. Serfontein said that if the day had arrived for the imposition of fresh taxation, the taxation should be imposed on sound democratic principles, but it should be only imposed after the people had been consulted. He felt that indirectly the poorer people would have to pay a large share of the new taxation. He was satisfied that when the necessity arose for taxation, the people of South Africa would be prepared to pay if they were consulted. As matters stood, he could not agree to the taxation proposals, and thought a better plan was the plan proposed by the hon. member for Rustenburg, viz., for the taxation of the exports of uncut diamonds.
They would not only get revenue in that way, but would do something to help establish a diamond polishing industry. He quite agreed with the views of the hon. member for Barberton in regard to the equalisation of native taxation. In regard to the criticisms levelled at this proposal, he held that the object was to treat the natives fairly and justly, and he claimed that there was no justice in natives in one Province being subject to a different tax to natives in another Province. It was time the native question should not be tackled piecemeal, but the day had come to tackle the question as a whole. Turning to the hon. member for Beaufort West, Mr. Serfontein said the hon. member had appealed to his (the speaker’s) section to come back to the folds of the party, to assist in the struggle against the Labour Party. That appeal should have been made to the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister and his followers had deviated from the party. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member went on to urge the necessity of railway extension to the Western Free State. It was essential that the railway line to Reitz and Frankfort should be built, as at present it did not answer its purpose. In conclusion, Mr. Serfontein said that he did not feel at liberty to vote for the Minister’s taxation proposals.
said he was pleased that the Government was continuing the work undertaken to employ the poor whites, and if there was one man deserving the thanks of the House it was Captain Naude, who was bringing the poor whites into touch with labour, and was helping them to get on. Mr. Van Niekerk went on to say that there was a serious matter which he wished to refer to, and that was the prevalence of gal-lamziekte, and he was pleased that the Minister of Agriculture had an open ear for the difficulties of farmers. Gallamziekte was a serious evil, as no preventive had yet been found for it. As a matter of fact, the disease was threatening many farmers with total ruin. It was more dangerous than either rinderpest or East Coast fever, because there was no known cure for it.
In reference to the diamond mines in the Free State, such as the Elandspruit, Blauwbosch, and Robert Victor, Mr. Van Niekerk urged the Minister to instruct these mines to establish compounds. At present the natives were a great nuisance to farmers. He trusted the example of the Kimberley mines would be followed, and that the natives would be kept in the compounds. In regard to police matters, the hon. member urged for additional police protection for his district, which was a most extensive district; in his constituency they spoke of 30 hours on horse back. Formerly Boshof had seven posts a week, but now four of them had been abolished. He also urged the Minister to establish additional telephonic communication for his district. At present the line was always engaged, he complained, and they had to speak via Kimberley, so that they had to wait for hours. There should be a direct telephone line to Boshof. The hon. member next urged that the members of the Defence Force should be properly armed. He also wished to draw attention to the system of tax collection in vogue in the Free State, and said it was infra dignitate to oblige the magistrate, an official who should hold a high status, to go round to collect the poll tax from the natives. He thought this matter should be given in the charge of the field-cornets, who should receive a small payment for that work. With reference to immigration, Mr. Van Niekerk asked why an amendment to Col. Byron’s motion in the Senate, aiming at placing the poor whites in the towns on the land had not been accepted? He held that there was always a fear that there was an attempt to make political capital, and he deprecated the smallness of mind displayed by members who always tried to decry the name of the hon. member for Smithfield. Turning to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Van der Riet), he denied that there was an increase in scab; as a matter of fact in his constituency there was a great improvement in this regard.
On the subject of tobacco, he held that the Free State could produce as good a quality as any of the other Provinces, and in Vredefort they grew the very best kind. When was the establishment of tobacco factories going to be encouraged?
There was another matter, which, although it did not fall under the Government’s jurisdiction, the Prime Minister might look into, and in regard to which the Prime Minister might try to use his great influence with the Imperial Government. The question he wished to refer to was the conditions in connection with Dutch Afrikanders in Rhodesia. Dutch Afrikanders there had a serious grievance in regard to the recognition of the Dutch language as a voting qualification. It was an insult and an injustice such as the Dutch language had not suffered for years. (Hear, hear.) And what was more, that a magistrate recently had given instructions that if a Dutch resident of Rhodesia could not carry out the English education test he should be disqualified and not be allowed to be placed on the register. This insult to the Dutch language showed a narrow-mindedness which was surprising. It was an insult that an Afrikander who spoke only Dutch should be considered to have a lower status than the Englishman who spoke only English. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the principle was that the native should not be given the vote. What prevented the native from learning 50 words of English? Yes, the Dutch Afrikander might do the same, but the principle was wrong; the principle was that Dutch was not recognised, and to that he as a citizen of the Union protested. He hoped the Prime Minister would take up the matter and use his influence to have this insult removed. (Ministerial cheers.) Mr. Van Niekerk proceeded to deal with the taxation proposals which he did not agree with, and described as the insertion of the thin end of the wedge. And that wedge would be pressed right home if ever the Opposition came into power. It was, in his opinion, wrong to increase the duty on imported petroleum, as many pumping machines used in irrigation used petroleum as a fuel. He agreed, however, that the duty on imported gramophones should be increased. Economy was possible in several directions; for instance, there was the payment to the strike-breakers at the New Kleinfontein, the £47,000 paid on account of miners’ phthisis should be recovered from the mines, and the spending of £25,000 for advertisements in England was unnecessary.
Whilst not objecting to taxes in general, he objected to the land tax. It was true that the farmer was not at present touched, but the principle was wrong, and when the Opposition got into power they would know how to drive the wedge home. The principle laid down by the hon. member for Barberton was the right one. It was unfair that the different Provinces should have such widely different taxes to pay. Touching on railway matters, Mr. Van Niekerk pleaded that railway communication should be given to every part of the country which at present had no railway. He especially urged the building of a light railway through Bothaville to Boshof. They did not want a heavy line, but they wanted something. Stacks of unused railway line was at present rusting in the sheds and he appealed to the Minister to do something for his district. Dealing with the remarks of the Minister of Finance as to the possibility of economy on the stationery and printing vote, he trusted that the Dutch language would not be unjustly treated, or, he said, something terrible would happen. And he also hoped the Minister would next year make his Budget statement in Dutch.
The hon. member for Barberton had been the first sinner in this regard by making his two Budget statements in English, but he hoped next year the Budget speech would be in Dutch. Continuing, Mr. Van Niekerk said he regretted having to deal with personal matters. Perhaps the personalities had been initiated by the hon. member for Ladybrand, but there had been no cause to continue this. He wished to express his regret at the remarks of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg, who in his references to the war had been most indiscreet. It was not proper for the hon. member to talk about “hands-uppers.” Did the hon. member know that the hon. member for Ladybrand before the war was Consul for Belgium and that when the war broke out he resigned and took up arms? Because he was made prisoner of war he asked, was it right to refer to him as prisoner of war? The hon. member for Zoutpansberg by his attack on Mr. Fichardt had done the Government a lot of harm. The Prime Minister after the war had been the first to try and bring about an easier feeling, and he trusted he would use his influence now with his lieutenant to bring him back to the proper course. The hon. member regretted that it had not been laid down that every member was not to speak longer than three-quarters of an hour. (Laughter.)
You spoke for an hour.
said he could see no reason why the proposal to have a Budget Committee was not adopted. It was done in France, and was found to answer. He deprecated the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton that the spoonfeeding of the poor whites would have ill-effects. He held that the old policy of the Transvaal in regard to assisting the poor people had had excellent effects. Finally, he begged that the names of stations should be given either in pure English or else in pure Dutch, but not in a mixture of both. (Hear, hear.)
rising at 7.5 p.m., moved the adjournment of the debate.
was about to put the question, when
rose and said he thought the House was entitled to hear what answer the Government had got to give. The House had been in continuous session since 2 o’clock, and he thought the least the Government could do was to accept the proposal. He saw that several hon. members both on that side and on the Government side desired to speak. The Government must know that this was one of the few evenings that hon. members had got when they could make their own arrangements. He had an analysis in his hands which, he thought, ought to convince his hon. friend that he should not oppose the adjournment. In this debate so far the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways had each had one day. For the rest of the House there had been three half-days, and five full days, including to-day. On that side of the House 16 members had spoken, on the Government side 39, and on the cross-benches 5. To-day eight members had spoken on the Government side, and one member on that (the Opposition) side. He would urge upon the Prime Minister that he should accept this very reasonable proposal. If the Government’s majority were used for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Finance to move the adjournment this evening, they might find hon. members rising to address the House after the Minister had replied on the debate. Sir T. W. Smartt added that human endurance could not go on like this. The public gallery was empty, and it was not fair to the officials and to the members of the Press to prolong the sitting in this way.
said he regretted to notice the tone of the Leader of the Opposition. It seemed to him that the hon. member was acting in accord with the remarks they heard so often that the Opposition should fight the Government. It was ridiculous to point to the empty public gallery. The House did not come here for the public gallery, but to do the business of the country. Seeing that the time to-day had been taken up by members on his side of the House, he would not oppose the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock. He regretted, however, to have heard from the leader of the Opposition what attitude he proposed to adopt, and that if the Minister of Finance spoke on Monday his side might not observe the usual etiquette, not to speak after the Minister had replied. He knew very well that if the Government insisted on closing the debate to-night the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to say that the Government had abused its power to close an important debate like this.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
The debate was adjourned until Monday next.
The House adjourned at