from Charlotte B. S. Cundill, who forfeited her pension rights through failing to register, for relief.

from J. H. B. Fletcher, telegraph clerk, for condonation of a break in his service.

from W. Craul, railway foreman, for condonation of a break in his service.

from G. E. Geyer, retired, after over 30 years’ service as a teacher for relief.

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

Government Notice No. 812 of 1914, having reference to the amendment of the Water Court Regulations framed in terms of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act No. 8 of 1912.

Annual Report for 1913 and Audited Accounts of the Indian Immigration Trust Board of Natal.

asked the Minister of Justice if he will bring in a short Bill giving the opportunity to persons fined in courts of law to pay by instalments, or in such manner as the court may direct?

As the hon. member is aware, the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in another place some time ago that it was the intention of the Government to legislate this session in the direction of keeping people out of gaol. I am to-day moving for leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision as to the administration of criminal justice in connection with this undertaking, which Bill incidentally deals with the question of payment of fines by instalments.

for Mr. H. M. Meyler (Weenen), asked the Minister of Lands what area of rural land has been transferred, through the Deeds Office in Natal, from Europeans to Asiatics since 19th June, 1913?

3,463 acres.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Why were the guard-irons and cow-catchers removed some months ago from the shunting engines working in the Pietermaritzburg yard; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that, owing to the absence of a guard-iron or cow-catcher, shunter Livermore was knocked down by one of these engines and killed, the Minister will take steps to see that every protection is afforded to prevent unnecessary loss of life, by haying the guard-irons or cow-catchers replaced?

replied: Cow-catchers and, in some cases, guard-irons were removed from shunting engines at Pitermaritzburg several years ago, as a result of an accident to a shunter at Durban and representations made by the shunters at Pietermaritzburg. (2) The unfortunate accident by which shunter Livermore lost his life cannot be attributed to the absence of a guard-iron or cow-catcher, as the hon. member infers; and as the shunters protested against cowcatchers and guard-irons being attached to shunting engines, it is not proposed to have them replaced.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether resolutions relating to the following matters, adopted by the Transvaal Provincial Council, have been communicated to the Government by the Transvaal Provincial Secretary: (a) Constitution of Rand Water Board; (b) relief of unemployment by land settlement; (c) repeal of clause 4 of the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Act, 1914; (d) amendment of the South Africa Act, to enable Provincial Council to dismiss the Executive Committee of the Province, and to appoint such Committees as will possess the confidence of the Council; (e) the grant of power to the Transvaal Provincial Council to legislate in regard to miners’ phthisis; and (2) if such resolutions have been so communicated, what steps do the Government propose to take in regard to these resolutions?

The attention of the Government has been directed to the resolutions in question, and they are receiving consideration.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether the whole of the 694,397 acres stated by him to have been disposed of during 1913 under the various Acts dealing with Crown lands have been actually sold; if not—(2) what areas have been (a) sold, (b) leased with option of purchase, (c) leased without option of purchase; (3) when the report of the Lands Department for the year 1913 will be published?

(1) No. (2) (a) 129,743 acres; (b) 444,001 acres; (c) 120,653 acres. (3) It is hoped to have the report in the hands of the printer next week.

for Mr. H. M. Meyler (Weenen), asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Has the attention of the Government been drawn to an interview, published in the “Natal Advertiser” of the 11th inst., with reference to communications which have passed between Messrs. Ernest Whitcutt and Co., of Durban, and the Customs Department, concerning the rate of duty which has been charged on mustard oil, and, if so, is the information contained in such interview authentic; (2) has the Government instructed the collection of this rate of duty, or, if not, who is responsible for the collection of such a rate; (3) is it intended that the 10 per cent overcharge of duty should be refunded if application is made for same; and, if so, (4) what is the total amount over-collected since Union?

(1) My attention has been drawn to the article mentioned. It is the case that on receipt of the analytical report the Customs authorities decided that mustard oil was entitled to come in at the 15 per cent, duty. (2) Mustard oil has been classed for duty at 25 per cent, for the past seven years. The Commissioner of Customs’ ruling that it was an essential oil has only now been challenged. (3) No. (4) No attempt has been made to ascertain the amount. In view of the answer to the previous question, the labour involved in procuring the information would not be justified.

asked the Minister of Rail-ways and Harbours whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, no proper provision having been made for the appointment of the necessary employees at the railway station Toevlucht, on the Springs-Ermelo line, where there is considerable traffic, the public not only is being caused inconvenience, but is sustaining losses owing to the want of proper supervision of their goods, and, if so, whether he is prepared to appoint the necessary employees at the said station as soon as possible?

Toevlucht was opened as a siding in October, 1911, as a result of representations made for railway facilities at that place; but the small volume of traffic dealt with does not warrant the opening of a station or the appointment of a resident staff.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether it is a fact that farmers in the Cape Province have been refused or are not allowed more than one licence under the Location Act, and, if so, will the Minister see that this limit be cancelled and that a reasonable number of licences be granted to the employer to meet his actual requirements?

No instructions that private location licences under Act No. 32 of 1909 (Cape) should be limited have been issued. Applications for new licences for ordinary tenants in excess of the number already authorised must be approved by the Divisional Council and the Governor-General-in-Council. In no case has the Divisional Council approval been overruled by the Governor-General-in-Council. Licences for additional labour tenants are granted after consultation with the Divisional Council; the decision in each case depends on the actual requirements of the farmer for the due working of his property. There has been no change of policy since the taking effect of the Act, the only variation being one of procedure, which was rendered necessary in order to carry out the formalities laid down by the Natives Land Act.

on behalf of Mr. H. E. S. Fremantle (Uitenhage), asked the Minister of Defence: (1) Whether Dutch is a compulsory subject in the examination for commissioned rank in the C.M.R., and, if so, whether allowance is made for men who have served in the regiment in places where Dutch is not commonly spoken; (2) whether his attention has been drawn to a speech made at Bloemfontein in January by Mr. J. G. Smith, formerly Lieutenant in the Staats Artillerie; (3) whether it is a fact that there are no Dutch-speaking artillery officers in the Union; (4) whether any provision is made for instruction in the medium of Dutch at the gunnery class at Auckland Park, and, if so, what and how long it has been made; and (5) whether he has received complaints from Mr. Smith, or others, that the Dutch language is not fairly treated at Auckland Park, and that candidates for commissioned rank are at a disadvantage if their mother-tongue is Dutch, and, if so, whether there has been any investigation into the matter, and with what result?

(1) The answer to both points is in the affirmative. (2) No. (3) By no means. Four Dutch-speaking officers who belonged to the late Transvaal Staats Artillerie are now serving with the Permanent Force two of them with the permanent batteries, and two on the instructional staff. (4) Gunnery classes are now no longer held at Auckland Park, but instruction is carried on in the permanent batteries which have been formed from officers, non-commissioned officers and men who were given instruction at special classes formed at Auckland Park in order to obtain trained nucleus staffs for the permanent batteries. (5) Yes, such complaints were received and carefully investigated. In so far as it was impossible in the very early stages to obtain instructors with the necessary knowledge of modern quick-firing artillery who could impart instruction in the Dutch language, and that the artillery handbooks had not then been translated and printed in that language, the complaints appeared to have some foundation in fact. On the other hand, a number of Dutch-speaking officers, non-commissioned officers and men have now qualified as a result of having undergone instruction at Auckland Park, and some of them have shown marked ability and promise. The greatest pains were taken to minimise the language difficulty in the case of Dutch-speaking candidates. The examination papers were set and answered in Dutch whenever desired. Some of those who qualified and showed marked ability in gunnery were not at all proficient in English and it may be said that no really capable and promising candidate was rejected on account of his want of knowledge of English. The fact is that modern gunnery requires exceptional qualities and a good educational standard in the higher ranks. There has been a marked tendency on the part of unsuccessful candidates to attribute their failure to qualify to the language difficulty, when in point of fact it was due to their lack of those qualities and the degree of education which are absolutely necessary to make an efficient artillery officer or noncommissioned officer under the conditions demanded by modern quick-firing artillery. These conditions and the method of indirect fire as compared with the field guns and methods in use ten or twelve years ago, when direct fire was generally used, make a very much greater demand upon the personnel of artillery batteries.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether Driver H. Chapman, who is to be retired on the 1st August, 1914, has, during his service on the South African Railways, had an entirely clean record, not even a caution having been recorded against him; (2) whether he has been over 10 years in the Service, and is now about 35 years of age; (3) whether the alleged reason for his retirement, as stated in his notice of retirement, is re-organisation; and (4) whether, in selecting persons for retrenchment on reorganisation, the Administration make it the practice to select men who are in the prime of life and who have, during a lengthy period of service, performed their work so efficiently as to have preserved a record clean of any complaint?

Driver Chapman’s case has been dealt with by the Railway Board. His retention in the Service is not considered to be in the Administration’s interests, and, that being so, the Board has decided to retire him in terms of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1912.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) Whether he is aware that the present method of letter delivery at Goodwood is for each inhabitant to call at a small hut, and upon inquiry for letters, etc., to be handed a bundle of correspondence to look through; and (2) whether, seeing that Goodwood has a population of 2,500 inhabitants, he will take steps at the earliest opportunity to establish a post office where letters can be delivered by post boy, and general postal facilities placed at the disposal of residents?

(1) Letters are delivered at Goodwood once daily by a carrier within a recognised delivery area. Correspondence for residents living beyond the delivery area is left at the Post Restante at the agency which is said to be suitably located in a general dealer’s store. Inquiry has elicited the fact that the agent had on several occasions handed over correspondence to members of the public in the manner indicated above, but on representations being made to the department in the matter, the agent’s attention was at once drawn to the irregularity, and I understand the letters are now being properly delivered over the counter. (2) Delivery by post boy already obtains over a large area. Good-wood has telegraphic and telephonic communication and the agency sells postal orders and postage stamps. The revenue, which is very small, would not at present justify the additional expenditure involved in granting further facilities at the Goodwood office, which is distant about 11/4 miles from the full departmental post office at Parow.

So far as the Government are aware no native labourers have been recruited north of latitude 22 deg. S. for employment on the Hlobane or other Natal collieries. There are, however, 299 tropical natives employed at Hlobane Colliery. These arrived at the mine as follows: December 2, 40; April 24, 42; April 28, 31; May 3, 38; May 9, 107; May 13, 41. Government approval was given to their employment at Hlobane in respect of the first batch only, which comprised natives who had entered the Union of their own accord in search of work. Inquiries are still being made as to the exact circumstances under which the other batches were engaged. The fact that there is no system of Government registration at the collieries similar to that at the Rand makes it difficult to furnish precise information without such inquiries. Meantime, however, it is of interest to note that there has been no death from sickness or accident amongst the tropical natives employed at Hlobane. Only four shifts have been lost owing to sickness. Two natives were admitted to hospital—one being detained owing to sickness for four days, and the other for a minor injury on the 20th instant.

Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that these natives were, by the full cognisance of the Government, imported into the Union?

No.

was proceeding to speak, when he was loudly Called to order. Amid the uproar, the hon. member for Jeppe was understood to say that he insisted upon his right to move the adjournment of the House upon an urgent matter.

The adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: The breaking of the law by the Government in respect of certain tropical natives who were in the Union in contravention of the Immigration Act.

I have just informed the House that according to the rules of the House a reply to a question could not be debated. The hon. member for Jeppe now tries to evade that rule by moving the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question. In my opinion the subject matter of the motion is not such as is contemplated by Standing Order No. 29, and consequently I cannot allow it to be put.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision as to the administration of criminal justice.

said he could not agree to the Bill being introduced until the House had some information regarding the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which was down on the Order Paper for second reading. They did not know the terms of the Bill which the Minister intended to bring in. Did the Government intend to withdraw the Riotous Assemblies Bill, and was the Bill about to be introduced a new version of that Bill? If so, he thought the House ought to be informed. In conclusion, the hon. member said he was not disposed to give the Minister leave to introduce the Bill.

said they had had some remarkable experiences during the last few months of so called justice, and they were extremely suspicious of anything connected with the administration of so-called justice put before that House.

said he was surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Newlands. One of the things in that Bill was to try and keep people out of gaol—(laughter)—by making provision for the payment of fines. Under this Bill there was a provision whereby facilities could be allowed accused for paying their fines. It also tried to make the law uniform with regard to suspended sentences on certain conditions, and it also sought to provide that no witnesses should be kept in gaol unless on the order of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. The Bill had nothing to do with the measure mentioned by the hon. member.

said the Government would save a lot of time if they would publish these Bills in the “Gazette ” before introduction.

said that the explanation of the Minister was satisfactory so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. There were matters requiring correction in high places, and as far as he could see there was nothing in the Bill dealing with those matters. They had the case that afternoon of the Prime Minister, who was supposed to maintain law and order, having condoned openly a flagrant violation of the law. He condoned a thing in violation of an Act which was only passed last year, and one Minister spoke of it as if it was a matter that did not concern the House at all. He thought the Minister should provide some way of bringing to book people in high places who defied the law and Acts of Parliament. They wanted something to make the real law-breakers and the real inciters to violence amenable to justice. The man who, in a callous way would tear up an Act of Parliament—

The hon. member is again transgressing my ruling.

Your ruling, sir—

said that the hon. member tried to raise a debate on the question put by him to the Prime Minister, which was answered. The hon. member then attempted to over-ride the ruling by moving the adjournment of the House to discuss that matter, and now upon a motion to introduce a Bill, of the contents of which, the hon. member admitted he was not aware, he atempted to bring up a matter that was not germane to the issue.

said that on a point of order he wanted to know clearly whether no reference could be made in debate to a question which had been answered in that House?

said he was not going to give a general ruling.

was understood to say that if there was no ruling, he thought he was entitled to deal in debate with any matter which had been dealt with across the floor of the House. He had said all he wanted to say, but he claimed he had that right.

said that while he agreed with the Bill as sketched by the Minister, surely there were many things in the administration of criminal justice which could be improved. (Labour cheers.) Owing to the slipshod way of introducing Bills no time was allowed for getting into touch with magistrates or law societies. Under the old regime Bills had to be published three months before introduction.

expressed his appreciation of the courtesy of the Minister, but contended that the explanation did not go far enough. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Barkly, and associated himself with the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppe. There were men in high places who should be pulled up, and these highly placed offenders should be shown the enormity of their offences. The hon. member was understood to say that even the Minister of Mines broke the law in regard to allowing Kafirs to do drill shapening.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House the system of election for Parliament should be by proportional representation, due consideration being given to sparsely populated districts.”

Few persons were aware that the character of representative Government in the Last 20 years had entirely changed, but the mode of electing representatives had not changed. Referring to Britain, the hon. member said that from 1430 right up to 1832 there had not been one single alteration made by the extension of the franchise, and then they had had the Reform Bill. They had had the Reform Bill of 1867 and the Re distribution Bill of 1885. They had not had many changes. The first time that proportional representation had been considered in South Africa had been in the first Act of Union, which had contained a proviso that the election of members should be by proportional representation. He submitted that that body of men who formed the first Convention had determined to give South Africa the finest Act of Union and Parliament Act that they could. They had told the country that, in their opinion, that form of election was the truest and fairest, in order to get the best representative Government. But when it had reached the light of day and reached the country, and: reached the politicians, proportional representation had been sacrificed for party. They commenced to consider “how many seats will I win, and how many seats will I lose?” The great principle had been sacrificed because it had not suited certain parties. In Tasmania, when they had introduced proportional representation, they had it in the largest constituencies first. The best representation, it had been said in America, was to have proportional representation, and put the whole State on the ballot paper. So far as he knew, there had not been a single intelligent newspaper in South Africa which had not written in favour of proportional representation, and the leader-writers were convinced that it was the truest system of election in order to get a Parliament truly representative of the people. The true purpose of proportional representation was to get true representation and the representation of minorities In the old Cape Colony they had had the cumulative vote in regard to the Legislative Council elections, for the purpose of giving representation to minorities. They had had three-member circles, and the same principle had been kept to when an additional member had been given. The Home Rule Bill had the principle of proportional representation in it, and that showed the advance that that question had made. The first election for the Cape Hospital Board had also been by that system. The hon. member proceeded to quote figures showing the proportion of the various parties in Britain at a number of general elections, and showing how the majorities would have differed if the election had been by proportional representation. He said these figures made one think. In 1910 the Liberals had got a majority of over 100, whereas, according to proportional representation, the majority would have been just 40. In France the system of election had been by the second ballot, and in their Parliament the question had been discussed with the result that doing away with the second ballot had been favoured, and there had been a majority of 122 in favour of proportional representation. The country had then voted on it, with the result that proportional representation got 5,435,000 votes, while there were 2,823,000 votes against it. So that France, from now onwards, would be under the system of proportional representation. In Germany the question had been brought up the previous year, and had been discussed in the German Parliament, with the result that 139 had voted for proportional representation and 140 against. The most modern Parlia ment of all—China—(laughter)—had elected its first Parliament by proportional representation. (Hear, hear.)

The Transvaal Provincial Council elections three years ago gave to the Unionists over 20 representatives and to Labour 2.

Four.

said that had those elections been conducted under the proportional representation system the Labour Party would have secured eight seats. At the recent elections for the Transvaal Provincial Council the Labour Party swept the decks, whereas under proportional representation they would have obtained only 14 seats. The Cape Peninsula had not a single representative of the South African Party in the House; that was possibly a good thing, but that system did not represent the whole of the political feeling of the people in the Peninsula. Again, in the Free State the Unionists had only one representative in the Union Parliament. It had been shown that the electoral pendulum in Great Britain had only to swing 10 per cent., and the whole character of the representation in Parliament was altered. Proportional representation had a further advantage in that it gave a wider independence of opinion to a member, and it made him independent of the small areas. As to the representation of the outside districts a fair principle for this sparsely populated area would be 1,500 morgen for each elector. South Africa, continued Mr. Brown, was not yet free from all racial feelings. Experience had shown that in Belgium the strong racial feeling had been entirely done away with under proportional representation. Any system of representation which tended to do away with racial feeling should eagerly be grasped by every member of the Union Parliament. If he could convince both sides of the House that proportional representation would have this effect there would be no opponents to the system. (Hear, hear.) Again, under proportional representation there would not be so much personal ill-feeling engendered between candidates. The hon. member went on to urge that Parliament could only represent the true spirit of the nation if majorities and minorities were reasonably represented in the House. Until Parliament represented the views of people in every sphere of life and of every section of the electorate, and provision was made so that the minority as well as the majority could make its voice heard in the House, they could not make laws which would really reflect the views of the people in general. It had been said that this was only an academic discussion. If it were only an academic discussion, he felt that it was an academic discussion that had justice on its side, that had true representation on its side and that had on its side the force to make the voice of the people heard in the House. (Hear, hear.)

seconded the motion.

said he wanted to associate himself, and he thought he could safely associate his colleagues with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Three Rivers. They were keenly in favour of this system of election being introduced in this country, even though the result might possibly be to their disadvantage as a party in so far as the Provincial Council elections in the Transvaal were concerned.

What about the Executive Committee?

I am glad the hon. member has introduced that. We would be quite prepared to maintain the proportional system of election in the Executive Committee, provided it were proportional through and through. (Labour cheers.) We don’t want half of one system and half of another. The Government that the hon. member supports nominates one member of that Executive Committee, the Administrator. By having the system of proportional representation that we have at the present time for electing the Executive Committee of the Transvaal Province, or any other Province, a majority in that House is actually represented by a minority on the Executive Committee, unless, of course, that majority reflects the political opinions of the Government of the Union which happens to be in power for the time being. The party that is in a majority in the House has a minority on the Executive Committee, and, therefore, cannot exercise the functions of Government. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the party with which he was associated had always upheld the proportional representation system, in spite of the fact that it might on occasions militate against their success at the poll. He pointed out that, in many cases under the present system of single-member constituencies, there was only a small margin of votes between the successful candidate and the unsuccessful candidate, and that very considerable minorities of electors thus failed to secure representation. He desired to take some exception to the concluding portion of the hon. member’s remarks in reference to special consideration being given to sparsely-populated districts. In that matter the hon. member was not convincing. He (Mr. Madeley) had not heard any arguments addressed in favour of such differentiation. He did not see why, because any particular portion of the country happened to be sparsely populated, it should have exceptional treatment. He did not know how the hon. member proposed to give special treatment.

One-member constituencies.

with leave of the House, explained that, personally, he was not favourable to any exception being made, but it had been pointed out to him that the exigencies of this country were such that it was essential in certain constituencies that he had named to adopt differential treatment.

said he took it that the ground work was the difficulty in getting round these large districts. But everybody had to go to the polling station, and he did not see that it made any difference whether the district was sparsely populated or not. He was afraid that putting forward these claims for these thinly populated parts meant that they were to be given some advantage over the thickly populated areas, and for that reason he was going to move an amendment to delete the concluding sentence in the motion. They could scarcely deal with three or four districts specially in such a wide question as that of proportional representation. He hoped the House would adopt the principle. He moved that all the words after “representation,” down to the end of the motion, be deleted.

in seconding the amendment, said this matter was not going to be such a difficult thing as some hon. members anticipated. Unfortunately they could not have true proportional representation in this country while one-half of the population was disfranchised. He referred to the fact that women had no vote. He hoped that the opinion which was reflected in the National Convention in favour of proportional representation would be adopted by that House.

in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Springs, said that his party had advocated the principle of proportional representation in season and out of season, although it would hit the party heavily in their municipal elections. The system was being practically adopted in every country in the world, and they had the example set them by the British Parliament in regard to Home Rule, so that when the Home Rule Parliament came into existence it would be formed upon the proportional representation basis. This principle no doubt had been adopted owing to the great warring factors in that country, and the English Parliament believed that by adopting proportional representation it would largely do away with that religious prejudice which existed in Ireland to-day. The aims of proportional representation were that the majority should rule and that the opinions of the minorities should be heard. At the present day there was a very large section of the community which was not heard, and the time had arrived when this inequality should be remedied. He believed it would also enable the constituencies to ignore the coteries which existed in all political parties and organisations.

said he supposed the subject had been introduced for the sake of discussion as he did not regard it as coming within the range of practical politics. In any case he thought it was unwise to introduce it so soon after the Act of Union when the question brought so many feelings into conflict. Looking at the question from a theoretical point of view, he thought there could be little doubt that the present system was open to very serious criticism, and that, of course, was a fact which was recognised by the National Convention, because in its first report the principle was accepted, and in the case of the Senate and the election of the Executive of the Provincial Council had been adopted. There were, however, other alternatives to that of the representation principle as remedies for the present system. There was what was called the “plump vote.”

You mean the cumulative vote.

Yes, that was the system well-known in the Cape Province.

It was also in vogue in connection with the larger constituencies like Cape Town for the Assembly, but in 1892 the plump vote for the Cape Peninsula was abolished. The second method to get better representation was by having a second ballot, and this was the system in vogue in Holland and France. Its practical advantage was that they had a true majority sending a man to Parliament. When three men were in the field and the vote was split they often had the minority nowadays sending a man to the House, and that was becoming a rather common occurrence in England. The question was whether that was not a better and simpler way than proportional representation. The third expedient was the rather complicated system of proportional representation. The general objection taken to it was that it broke down the efficiency of party government.

And a good thing, too.

That may or may not be the case. I said at the outset that I was dealing with this as a purely academic question. Continuing, he said that on the whole he thought party government made for better government, and he preferred the method in England to the group system in France. The general disadvantage of a proportional representation system was that it was rather complicated. It worked fairly well when they dealt with compact constituencies, but when they came to larger areas it was a different matter. Some of the electorates were wide enough at present, but he did not think it would work if they had to throw three constituencies into one. Proportional representation could be worked for one and three or more, but did not work for two.

It is easier for two.

Well, you don’t get any advantage. Continuing, he said that if the hon. member meant by the latter part of his motion to confine proportional representation to the larger centres he (the Minister) thought a good deal could be said for his motion.

But he thought it would be rendered unworkable if applied to the country districts and three member constituencies formed. He pointed out the case of Water-berg, Rustenburg, and Zoutpansberg being merged into one, and said it would take six months to get round it. He thought a good case had been made out for the larger centres, and he accepted the motion.

said under Republican Government, Rustenburg returned four members. He did not think the difficulties would be insuperable if the three constituencies were joined together.

What if the three candidates were not of the same party?

said they could come to an arrangement, each of the three taking a different section of the constituency every year.

said that the Minister had said it would not be wise to reopen this question so soon after the passing of the Union Act. He took a keen interest in proportional representation in Natal, and said that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction in that Province when it was known that proportional representation had been cut out of the Union Act.

made a remark which was inaudible.

Oh, I am only dealing with the civilised parts. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said he believed in proportional representation, but he was not satisfied that what was called proportional representation was the method by which to secure it. He doubted whether they would secure it in that way. He thought to get the best system they should follow the example of three countries as one, Japan, Queensland, and Belgium, and he proceeded to deal with those systems in detail. In Belgium a man got a ticket, and that ticket was punched at the polling booth, so that there could be no impersonation. In conclusion, the hon. member said that when they were considering a better system of representation he hoped that Japan, Queensland, and Belgium would be kept in view.

in replying on the debate, said that the hon. member who had just spoken had referred to Japan, but Japan was an argument in their favour, because he found that in that country they had from one to twelve-member constituencies, and each person had only one vote. The system there gave minority representation, but not true representation. The Minister of Education had rather amused him, because he had made references to the second ballot in France. Evidently he had not listened to what he (Mr. Brown) had said, because if he had listened, he would know that France had just done away with the second ballot. Proceeding, the hon. member said that clause 136 of the first South African National Convention Bill said nothing about the second ballot or large constituencies or small ones, but contained the principle of proportional representation. The fourth name on the list of signatories was “F. S. Malan,” which had a strong resemblance to the name borne by the Minister. (Laughter.) The hon. Minister had swallowed proportional representation then, why? Because it was pure representation. An hon. member had said that it was too soon after the Constitution had been adopted to have a change, but the hon. member forgot that the Constitution, as drafted, had been altered before they had passed it, for the original Constitution made provision for proportional representation. He (Mr. Brown) favoured big centres starting with the system first, feeling confident that when they had adopted the system, it would spread to the other centres, which had to be educated up to it.

asked what was to become of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley). Was the mover of the motion against the amendment?

I am not against the amendment, but I can’t accept it, because it won’t go through the House.

went on to say that if the system of proportional representation was fair for the large centres, why not adopt it all through? It seemed as if the hon. member was going back on the early part of his speech, because he had said that why proportional representation was not more used was because it gave representation to a minority, and was not favoured by the party in power. The Minister of Education saw “the writing on the wall ” as far as the towns were concerned, so that he favoured the system for the towns, but not for the country, where the Labour Party might gain seats under that system. The previous Provincial Council in the Transvaal, when it saw that under proportional representation the Labour Party returned 11 members to the Johannesburg Municipal Council, said it was time to put a stop to that system— (Labour cheers)—so it repealed proportional representation as far as municipalities were concerned. But after Martial Law there came the deluge, there being 23 Labour members returned to the Transvaal Provincial Council out of a total of 45. The Labour Party in the Provincial Council now having a majority had recently passed a Municipal Ordinance which reversed the decision of the previous Provincial Council and established the principle of proportional representation once more although it would no doubt result in the Labour Party getting fewer members returned to the Town Council. They had done this because the system was sound and just to all parties. If the hon. member for Three Rivers was honest he would cay that proportional representation should be applied to the country districts as well as to the towns, so that there should be a fair deal all round.

said he had seen the handwriting on the wall, but he did not know that he had seen the same kind of handwriting as the hon. gentleman who had referred to it.

You will see it at the next election.

Wait and see. Continuing, Mr. Quinn said that proportional representation was spoilt if applied only partially. The difficulty in regard to country districts could be got over by means of the post office. It would be unfair to shut out the country districts on the flimsy excuse of inconvenience. Let them adopt a sound principle which was calculated to give them a proper proportional representation and let every interest in the country have its fair share of Parliamentary representation. The Minister trotted out the old bogey that they were too near the commencement of Union to make an alteration in the method of election. But the country would have to drop that argument sooner or later, and this would be a very good place to do it. The Act of Union was sacred, but they must not let it become a fetish. The English Constitution was the finest one in the world, but it was still growing and changing almost yearly, so do not let them cripple themselves by saying they must not touch the Act of Union. If the Act were found to be unworkable in certain respects it should be altered. The Minister’s other argument was that proportional representation would do away with party politics. But that would be a blessing. The Minister also trotted out the bogey of the group system which no one had ever mentioned. But we had the group system under the guise of a party system, and that was infinitely worse than an acknowledged group system. He (Mr. Quinn) was longing for the time when the party system, which was a curse, would be wiped out of existence. Do not let them be afraid of a system which was the right one and was an attempt to give every man his proper share in the representation of the country. He was sorry the Minister took the debate as a sort of private members’ day recreation. The House required something more than the mere driving through of Bills introduced by Government. An opportunity should be given to private members to introduce useful measures. He would rather the Minister had cursed the proposal than had treated it in the way in which he did. Mr. Quinn was complaining that there were only four hours a week for private members’ work, when—

called him to order.

Mr. Quinn thereupon resumed his seat.

then put the question that all the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion.

called for a division. (Laughter.)

Addressing Mr. Speaker, he said he understood that the amendment had it.

The division has been called.

wished to withdraw his request for a division.

Is there any objection to the division being withdrawn?

demanded that a division be taken.

after the bell had ceased ringing, again put the question, and said that those in favour of the words remaining must take their seats on his right, contrary on his left.

kept his seat on the right of Mr. Speaker.

said that according to the Rules of the House the hon. Minister must cross to the other side.

The division was taken, with the following result.

Ayes—50.

Alberts Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Herdrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignarius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and G. A. Louw, tellers.

Noes—25.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydeli, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Haggar. Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Quinn, John William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

H. A. Wyndham and Hewat, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley negatived.

then put the question that the motion be adopted, and declared on the voices that the “Ayes” had it.

challenged the correctness of the division.

The hon. member cannot do that. If a mistake has been made it will be rectified.

said that he rose for the purpose of making a personal explanation with regard to the last division but one. He wished to explain that when he called for a division he was under the impression that Mr. Speaker had given the vote for the “Noes.” He thought other hon. members were under that impression too. It was because he was under that impression that Mr. Speaker had given the vote for the “Noes ” that he (the Minister), who wanted to vote for the “Ayes,” challenged the division.

It is clear that the hon. member was under a misapprehension, but my voice is very strong. (Laughter.)

moved that the petitions from S. F. Alberts and others, J. W. van der Merwe and others, and J. W. Horn and others, praying for the remission of the repatriation debts, presented to this House on the 6th and 23rd March and the 3rd April, 1914, respectively, be referred to the Government for consideration. In the course of his remarks Mr. Van der Walt said the motion dealt with an extremely important question, as could be seen from the large number of petitions which had been presented on the subject. Owing to the late hour he was not going to say much, and he hoped hon. members would not talk the motion out. The question dealt with was like a black cloud hanging over the country, and he trusted the Government would accept the motion without discussion.

seconded the motion.

was about to put the question, when

rose and said that surely some Minister was going to speak in regard to this matter. The mover had said that this was a most important motion. He (Mr. Jagger) agreed that it was one of the most pernicious motions brought before this House, because why should men who owed these just debts be let off? This was money advanced by the State, on which the State had got to pay interest at the present time. It had been advanced for certain purposes, and there was no reason why these debts should not be paid. Of a total of over five millions advanced there had been written off a total up to March 31, 1913, of something like £803,000. Those were the remissions up to date. Furthermore, soon after Union there was considerable agitation as to the terms, etc., of these repatriation advances. Then further terms were drawn up and extended not only to the Transvaal but also to the Free State. Under a Government Notice issued in 1911 provision was made that the capital should be called up by certain annual instalments. During the period December 31, 1908, to December 31, 1912, there was estimated to be due £449,000, of which only £109,000 had been paid under the easier terms so far as the Transvaal was concerned. In the Free State the total due under these better terms was £82,000, towards which over £63,000 had been paid in. He could see no reason at all why any better terms than the existing ones should now be given. This matter had been before the Public Accounts Committee, and the evidence which had been tendered before the Committee showed, to his mind, that the Treasury, who were responsible for getting in these debts, had given every possible consideration to the debtors. What more did the hon. member want? He hoped the Government would not accept this proposition, because it only did damage. It encouraged these men to put off paying their debts and to try every possible method of getting out of their debts. This was unfair to the men who had paid their debts, and it was unfair to the taxpayers of the country

said he did not understand why his hon. friend had waxed so wroth over this matter. It happened every Tuesday that large numbers of petitions were referred to the Government for consideration. (Hear, hear.) Did the hon. member for a moment think that, if this matter were referred to the Government for consideration, the Government would, therefore, let off payment any man who could possibly pay? The policy of the Government in regard to the repatriation accounts was a simple one and had been carried out on uniform lines ever since 1910. Where a man was in a position to pay they made him pay the amounts due, but where the report of the magistrate or local officer was that they could not get payment from a man without selling him up and ruining him they gave an extension. That was the policy that was agreed to by the Transvaal Parliament. It was fully discussed by the Transvaal Parliament and it was agreed that that was a fair way of settling the difficulty. After 25 per cent. had been written oft, the balance of the amount was spread over six years. The same system of recovering payment of repatriation amounts was in operation in both the Transvaal and the Free State. In each individual case, before action was taken to sue a debtor in the Courts, the advice of the local officer, in almost every case the magistrate, was taken. If he said that, in his opinion, the person was one who could or ought to pay, he was made to pay, and, if he did not pay, he was sued for it.

asked whether reports were obtained from the field cornets.

If the man lives in a very distant part, no doubt the Magistrate then refers it to the field cornet. Proceeding, he said that if the magistrate’s report was that a person could not be made to pay without being sold up and ruined, and the initial policy of repatriation being nullified, then in such a case extension was given or part payment was taken.

said that when proposals were made in that House having a tendency to make a charge upon the revenue of the country, it was for the Minister of Finance to state what the Government intended to do, but not a word had been said regarding what the Minister’s policy was. There was no desire on the part of that Committee to which such questions were usually referred that any unfortunate person should be ruined by the Government pressing its claims. As the matter stood, the hon. member who moved the motion would go home to his constituency and tell them that the House had adopted the principles embodied in the petition. The policy, of course, which had always been followed was to inquire into every case and decide upon the individual merits of the case, and if such was the character that pressure for payment would result in ruin, relief was granted in the way of payment on the instalment principle. Why, he asked, should the Government accept the petition if they had no intention of departing from the policy that had always been adopted? Under these circumstances it was not wise for the hon. member to press his motion, because if it was accepted it would give the petitioners the impression that the Government were going to give sympathetic relief.

moved to add to the motion the petition of D. J. Robtertze and 29 others and the petition of Mr. A. Labuschagne and 43 others.

seconded the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

On the motion, as amended, being put, the “Ayes” were declared to have it.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—57.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Boy dell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron. Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and F. R. Cronje, tellers.

Noes—22.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Fawcus, Alfred

Griffin, William Henry

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Louw, George Albertyn

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Nathan, Emile

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

The motion, as amended, was therefore adopted.

That the petition from A. Leslie and 29 others, occupiers of small Government allotments on the south coast of Natal, praying that they may be granted freehold title of their respective holdings at any time on payment of the balance of the purchase price thereof, presented to this House on the 27th April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration. The mover said that the motion now proposed was diametrically opposed to the one which had just been passed. He hoped that the Government would deal with it upon its merits. The petition was presented by thirty men who had been induced to take up small holdings in the Umlazi division. There were few of them that had larger allotments than 10 acres, as that was the average size of the allotments given out by the Government of Natal at that time, The holdings of these men were too small, and it was impossible for these men to make a living. These people had invested their all and they were the sufferers. They were not allowed to sell, and they had an uncertain tenure under the conditions laid down. The petitioners claimed that they had made sufficient improvements for the 20 years in less time. They therefore asked that they should be given freehold title on payment of the balance. They could not bequeath this property, and the Government would not abate one jot of the conditions that existed. What they wanted in this country was as few hindrances as possible to the transfer of land from one hand to another. A man might have taken one of these allotments and found after a year that he was not the proper man for the work. But the Government said that he must not sell, but must stop there for 20 years before he would have anything to sell. Would it not be better to let the man sell to his neighbour on the adjoining land? They were bound by red tape regulations and harassed by rules and Government instructions. The allotments were too small, and he pointed out that many of the original owners were not left. He suggested a matter of five years was time enough to find out whether the man was fitted for the work or not. He did not see that it matters to the Government who occupied the land so long as it was beneficially occupied. He pointed out that in the regent closer settlement legislation the average time before freehold could be granted was ten years, and this, he thought, was more reasonable than the time laid down in the cases he had mentioned. The Government might have laid it down that a man could sell so long as he sold to another European of good character. He hoped that the Minister would take this matter into earnest consideration.

seconded the motion.

said that he must say that he was surprised at some of the statements which had been made by the hon. member, and they, the Government felt that some of them were not justified, although the Government had no objection to accepting that motion. These settlements had been started under the old Natal Government, and certain conditions had been laid down (which the Minister referred to). He said it seemed to him that the mover intended that they should have an absolutely free hand without regard to any of these conditions of the agreement, or the Act under which that settlement had been started. The Government had no objection to going into the matter, but the case of every settler would have to be gone into on its merits, to see whether these conditions had been carried out. If they were not very careful they would easily open the door to speculation and people coming in with the object of speculating with the grants which the Government had made to them. The Surveyor-General had stated that not in a single instance could he recollect, where the conditions had been fulfilled, by the original allottee, and of a be quest to his natural heir having been set aside or declined. The Government was not going to commit itself by saying that they were going to meet these people, but they had to make a proper inquiry to see whether these conditions had been complied with. According to the statement they had from the Surveyor-General, there were a few defaulters amongst these settlers, and it was the duty of the Government to see that these people were doing their duty. He was opposed in principle to people, as soon as they were in a difficulty, running to the Government for help, and they should do something for themselves. (Hear, hear.)

said that the mover of the motion should remember that most progressive countries in the world favoured leasehold rather than freehold. With regard to twenty years being too long, that had been agreed to, to make the terms as easy as possible. If these people could not live on the farm where were they going to get the money to pay in advance from unless they had to borrow it? He wished that the Minister would adopt the principle of the Torrens Land Act. He was afraid that the mover had not been speaking in the interests of these people. He (Mr. Haggar) knew that part of the country well, and a man could by proper cultivation make a splendid living on ten acres of ground there.

in reply, said that he noticed that the Minister had steered very clear of the smallness of these allotments. The point about the twenty years was this, that when they gave a man a small piece of land like that, he could not make his living on it alone, and had to eke out his living in the towns, and his occupation in the towns might not last for 20 years. How then was he to carry out the conditions with which he had perhaps rather foolishly shackled himself? A man by living on such land beneficially occupied it. If a man wanted to make provision for his wife and family in the case of death, he wanted something more definite than the approval or the disapproval of the Government.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that, in view of the immense importance to this country of the discovery of petroleum in payable quantity, and seeing that Mr. E. H. Cunningham Craig has indicated in his report on the petroleum prospects in the Union of South Africa that boring in the area south of Aberdeen, near Jansenville, Saxony, and Klipplaat Station may be rewarded with success, the Government be requested, with the view of testing the possibilities in that locality, to take into consideration the advisability of entering into negotiations with the Port Elizabeth company (who own a drill for oil boring, which they imported from Austria), with the object of (a) subsidising the company to conduct boring operations in that region, or (b) taking over the drilling plant from the company, or (c) making arrangements for the boring to be carried out on the tribute system. Proceeding, he said that this country was importing that kind of material to a large extent, and if it were possible to find it here there should be no effort spared in order to do so.

seconded the motion.

said the matter under discussion required hardly any further remarks from him. He pointed out that, in the Carnarvon district there was a company which had bored 4,350 feet, and had only sufficient funds to go a further 200 feet. He trusted that the Government would also try and give this company some assistance, and he moved an amendment to add the Carnarvon Company to the motion.

said that it was impossible for the Government to enter into a trade undertaking on a motion like this, but he would go into the matter during the recess, would negotiate with the companies concerned and would institute a general inquiry.

The motion and amendment were withdrawn.

The House, at 5.55, went into Committee of Ways and Means.

said that the matter under discussion was the taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance.

Business was suspended at 6 p.

said that the consumer derived very little benefit from the 3 per cent. preference given on imports from the United Kingdom. The General Manager of Railways, in his report, stated that if the railway rates prevailing in 1911 had been maintained up to the present date, the country would be getting something like 2½ millions more in railway revenue than it was doing at present. But the consumer derived very little benefit from the reduced railway rates. There was scarcely a country in the world the expenditure of which was not increasing, and South Africa had better look out for new fields of taxation. Income tax was a justifiable means of raising revenue, and it should be used as a means of equalising the distribution of wealth. Was South Africa never to have old-age pensions or free medical attendance? It was wrong to tax labour in any sense or form; but if they were going to tax profits, interests, or rents—those things which had accrued without the exertions of the individual—then the Labour Party was with them in every respect. Before earned incomes were touched, the whole of the unearned incomes should be taken for the benefit of the State. This principle should be applied not only to small but to large sums, and he did not see why interest— even the smallest sums—should not be taxed.

said it was quite possible to diminish national expenditure, but only by putting a check to the growth of sound democracy. So long as expenditure was increased by advancing democracy, the expenditure was likely to show a very much larger profit than by investing the money in any other way. The Minister of Finance wished to have the income tax made a permanent one, but the foundation was a shifting one. He (Mr. Haggar) regarded an indiscriminate income tax—a tax on earnings—with the utmost revolt. The debate had been chaotic, and he was not surprised, for no sound basic principle had been put before the House, nor had the House had any clear-cut definitions. The Minister had that day put a motion on the Table which had upset what had gone before.

Continuing, Mr. Haggar said there was only one reason for the taxation principle advanced by the Minister, and that was they were the lines of least resistance. He could understand such proposals coming from King John when he was an autocrat, coming from King Charles or from the Sultan of Turkey, but he could not understand their being advanced by so astute and adroit a person as the Minister of Finance. The remarkable thing to his mind was that the Minister was backed up by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He went on to read evidence given before the Royal Commission in the House of Lords a few years ago. The Labour Party stood to secure for every man the full benefit of his own work, not even the State had the right to say that because it had the power and others had the money, that they would take the money away. Such an attitude would be the same as that of a man in the street who robbed a boy of his purse, and no State could stand on such a rotten foundation. Mr. Gladstone had passed away, and it was said that all dead men are good. So he would quote. Mr. Asquith had actually introduced a distinction between earned and unearned increments. That distinction had been adopted by Germany, Australia, and by Great Britain, and they must adopt it here in South Africa, if not to-day, at no distant date. The people were studying politics and political economy for themselves, and were getting clear ideas, and their convictions were now so strong that their demands would have to be conceded. Supposing they passed a measure of that sort, they did not get the income at its source; would the Government say that it was prepared to take money from the salaries of Government employees in order to pay it into the Treasury, and would private employers be prepared to do the same thing?

asked whether the discussion was in order. They were in Committee of Ways and Means and a specific proposal had been submitted with regard to an income tax. Had they not only to deal with that question? Why should they have an academic discussion on taxation?.

said that the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar) had been discussing the question of earned and unearned increments in connection with which an amendment had been proposed by the hon. member for George Town.

pointed out that the amendment referred to had been moved the previous night.

continuing, said he was speaking in support of the amendment of the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews). He went on to quote various authorities on taxation. The principle of taxation on which he thought they should go was this—that the subject should contribute to the revenue on the basis of what he received from the State. The whole ground was covered in that statement. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had told him that he objected to Customs, but the system of Customs and the proposal to place the tax on men in proportion to ability to pay were identical at base. The basic principle was the same in both cases—that opportunity was justification. Mr. Haggar was going on to deal with farms that were worked and “Kafir farming,” when

said he must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he was wandering too far afield—he was discussing taxation too widely.

said surely he might illustrate his point. Surely he might show the farmers that they should distinguish between earned and unearned income? He would take the Kafir farmer—the man who let his land out to other men—and the bona-fide farmer. The bona-fide farmer tamed every bean that came into his hands; the other man simply took the earnings of other men without expense. To tax both these men to the same extent on the same amount was to tax them unjustly. The proposal of the Minister, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said would break down. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said, it would be difficult to carry it out when applied to farmers; why? because they had not a clear definition of income. Taxation was without the alleged difficulties elsewhere. He was not prepared to say that taxation was not necessary; it might be necessary for the purpose of revenue. But whether taxation was necessary or not was not the question. If they recognised that a man should pay a tax in proportion to the benefit he received the State should tax him, even if its coffers were full to overflowing. The Minister proposed in line 9, “From any source whatever within the Union.” He thought that was a mistake. Was not that an inducement to those who had made money to invest their money outside the Union? Were they going to recognise the obligations to the State? Were they to be citizens or helots? The hon. member for Barkly West called attention to rents, and thought it was not right that his rents should be taxed. The rents that come to him were only partly due to the money he had spent in building his houses, they were due to a large extent to the community. He (Mr. Haggar) wanted the Minister to come into line with other countries. They should tax those who were idle and who were practically parasites on the community and the nation.

said that a little bird had whispered that as soon as they passed these proposals the remainder of the proposals would be dropped. He wished to deal with the flat rate on incomes over £24,000. There was only one fair and just principle in imposing taxation, and that was to prevent the men who had obtained too much from getting more and to assist the man who had nothing to gain something. Unfortunately, the principle had just been the reverse.

In a new country like South Africa they did not want people with incomes of over £24,000, because they were a danger to the State. They might get a Mr. Rockefeller here and they might have the spectacle one day of the Prime Minister going on his knees to that gentleman and asking him to stop civil war, as was the case in America. In sub-section (b) of section 1, he moved to omit all the words after “until” to the end, and to omit the whole of sub-section (c).

said he could not accept the amendment, because it meant additional taxation.

Do you mean that it will impose additional burdens on the people?

If you will pardon me, sir, for supporting you, I think you are quite right.

I cannot allow the matter to be debated.

said he was not going to debate the question. He was only going to say that it would be a pity if additional taxation was to be imposed on the poor millionaire. It was a pity the Minister did not think of this method of taxation. In view of the amendment placed on the paper by the Minister it was as well that they should inquire closely into the other proposal made by the Minister. If the Minister meant a tax on land not beneficially occupied they would allow this income tax to go through.

The hon. member cannot refer to the land tax now.

The Minister agreed to let us have a full and free discussion, even if we referred to alternative proposals.

I regret I must go by the rules of the House. The discussion I have allowed has been very wide, and if it becomes any wider I shall have to enforce strictly the rules of the House.

I treat your ruling with respect, sir, but I have not said a word on these taxation proposals, and I did not speak on the Budget, and if anyone should traverse these proposals widely it is “I.” (laughter.) He assumed that what the Minister meant by “beneficially occupied” and what he (Mr. Madeley) meant by “beneficially occupied” were diametrically opposite. The Minister meant any land with a tree stuck in the middle of it.

Proceeding, Mr. Madeley said that Mr. Lloyd George, who by the way was not a Socialist, had to raise over £9,000,000, and decided that increased taxation must come out of the pockets of those who received the most benefit from the State. That was the most fundamental principle on which to base taxation, and the first thing he carried into effect was to differentiate between earned and unearned income. Whereas the Minister of Finance here in his income tax proposals was only getting 1s. 6d. per £ from the poor unfortunate individuals who were earning £24,000 a year or more, Mr. Lloyd George had arrived at 1s. 4d. on incomes of £8,000 a year, and distinguished between earned and unearned income. He decided on an increased income tax beyond £3,000 on unearned incomes. He (Mr. Madeley) was not greatly in love with Mr. Lloyd George, but he was prepared to recognise anything that was good. Several hon. members had urged: on the Minister that he should here and now publish the exemptions which he proposed to introduce into his Bill. Mr. Lloyd George introduced an exemption in 1909 of 7s. 6d. off the taxation for every child under 16, and in spite of the fact that he had to find a revenue to meet that £9,000,000 deficit, he doubled that exemption subsequently, and now in England he was making a rebate of 15s. for every child under 16. That was quite right, for when a man was building up a family he was building up assets of the State. Continuing, Mr. Madeley said he supported the hon. member for Roodepoort in what the hon. member had said was rather a minor matter. He (Mr. Madeley) thought that the omission of those three words “in the Union ” was a most important matter, and he would move an amendment to delete those words. That would not be increasing taxation. It meant taxing somebody outside the Union.

The hon. member cannot move that amendment.

said he hoped then he might induce the hon. Minister to withdraw those words. Many people made their money in the country and invested it somewhere else, and drew dividends upon it that would not be taxed under those proposals. That was a direct inducement to people to take their capital out of the country. Mr. Lloyd George had decided to tax incomes derived from all investments outside the country. That was presumably those who had invested the money they had made in England or some other country. In South Africa they were starting direct taxation and he hoped that House would profit by the experience gained in other countries. Mr. Lloyd George expected to raise a million from that source, and if a Chancellor of his vast experience considered it a matter for taxation, surely our Minister of Finance should follow his example. He (Mr. Madeley) would like to point out that in times of abounding prosperity the Minister of Finance ought to consider the advisability of providing for the poor and starving children of the country.

called the hon. member to order.

said the hon. Minister had not yet got to the high water mark of expenditure if he intended to cope with the needs of the country as they should be coped with. He hoped before the Minister formulated the Bill that he would see fit to let them have particulars of the exemptions, and would also discriminate very sharply between earned and unearned income.

said that before they voted on the matter before the House he might say that he would agree to the proposal of his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) to make that an annual tax—(hear, hear)—but for that purpose the amendment which his hon. friend moved in the first instance would be sufficient. The words “from the services of the year ending 31st March, 1915, the amendment which the hon. member accepted at the suggestion of the hon. member for George, was not proper, and would only raise difficulties. The motion there proposed to say that there should be levied for the benefit of the consolidated revenue fund for the service of the year 1914-15. Then came the difficulty. The income tax would have to be paid during the year 1914-15, and supposing the amount had not been recovered by the 31st March next, then that amount, when recovered, would go into the consolidated revenue fund for the following year; but they had debarred themselves from collecting revenue for the consolidated funds next year, 1915-1916, and the result would be that that man would escape.

intimated that he would withdraw that part of the amendment.

asked if the hon. member would consider the amendment of the hon. member for George Town?

said he hoped the House would not accept that amendment, for it would make it almost impossible to carry out the taxation proposals. What was he earning by his services? A young man had worked hard, and had amassed a large fortune. That was a fortune he had earned by his personal exertions. The question of earned and unearned incomes he did not want to discuss at the present time, and that amendment would prove unworkable. The exemptions would be so large that he did not think they need trouble about those scientific distinctions. When the limit was brought down to £300 a year, then would be the time to make the distinction. The day might come when the exemption would be much lower. (Laughter.)

said that the problem of distinguishing between earned and unearned income was not a new one. The Minister had asked them what he (General Smuts) had earned, but he (Mr. Creswell) was afraid the Chairman would rule him out of order if he said what they thought the Minister of Finance had earned. (Laughter.)

said that for the last five years Australia had been differentiating between earned and unearned incomes.

Mr. Andrews’ amendment, to insert after “£1,000 ” the words, “which is the produce of property of any description, and is not the result of the personal exertion of the recipient of the income and” was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division.

The division was taken.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Alexander, Boydell, Creswell, Duncan, Haggar, Madeley, Maginess, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson voted in favour of the amendment),

declared the amendment negatived.

The following amendment by Mr. Nathan was then put: In the definition, “Taxable Income,” in line 2, to omit, “or receivable by, or has accrued to or in favour of,” and to substitute “by,” and to add at the end thereof, “but shall not include the revenue accruing to life insurance companies in the form of life insurance premiums.”

said he hoped the hon. member would be satisfied if he accepted part of the amendment. He (General Smuts) thought the words, “or receivable by,” might very well go out.

In Committee I can move an additional definition?

Oh, yes.

On that condition, I will withdraw the other portion.

asked the Minister of Finance to repeat his explanation in Dutch.

complied with the request.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

The second part of the amendment moved by Sir E. H. Walton was adopted: In lines 4 and 5 of the definition “Taxable Income,” to omit “and during the twelve months ending the 30th day of June in every year thereafter.”

then put the following further amendment by Sir E. H. Walton: To omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and to substitute, “(a) Where the taxable amount is £1 and does not exceed £2,000 the rate of income tax shall be 6d. per £1; (b) as the taxable amount increases the rate of income tax per £1 of the taxable amount shall increase by one penny per £1 for each additional £2,000 or part of £2,000 until the taxable amount is £26,000, so that in respect of a taxable amount of £26,000 the rate will be 1s. 6d. for every £1 of the taxable amount.”

hoped the amendment would not be pressed. It would involve very violent jumps. He did not understand that his hon. friend had wanted to change the rate in sections. He knew that the formula looked very formidable to the public, and rightly so. He proposed putting the formula which made the whole income tax graduate from the £1,000 up to £24,000, but as the regulations would be circulated among the public, he did not think the objection of his hon. friend would lead to difficulty.

said he knew that they could not carry his amendment. (Laughter.) What he had said was that the taxable amount should increase by a penny on each additional £2,000. (No, no.) That was what it meant. He would not argue the point, but everybody in the country would be confused by the mathematical table.

Sir E. H. Walton’s amendment was negatived.

said the Minister’s motion had been very fully discussed, also the view of the Opposition as to the extravagance of the Government. That view had been supported by those on the Ministerial benches, especially by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The Opposition had maintained since the first year of the Union Parliament that the extravagant manner in which the Government was carried out was not justified, and under those circumstances they felt that until the Government accepted their proposal to administer the country less extravagantly than in 1910, it was impossible for them to vote for fresh taxation. They did not think that the taxation proposals had been framed after proper consideration. It was only because of political expediency that the House had sat as long as it had Nobody knew that better than the Minister and the hon. gentlemen who sat behind him. If increased taxation were necessary, he thought the Minister should have taken a leaf out of the book of the hon. member for Victoria West, who dealt with the matter in 1909. The form of taxation they would be introducing was such that should only be introduced in times of great stress. He agreed that they could so adjust their expenditure that they could make revenue and expenditure balance, and that was the position the House should take up. The Opposition were not responsible for the fresh taxation proposals, and he would vote against them.

asked whether that was the beginning of a fresh debate. It had now been going on for three days. If other hon. members were of the same frame of mind as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) it would lead to another long discussion. During the course of the Budget debate the matter had been discussed for three weeks. The hon. member had raised it in his amendment, and it was finally disposed of by the House. He hoped they would not be entering upon a fresh stage of the debate now. There was one conclusive answer to the charge of the hon. member as to the extravagance of the Government, and that was that whereas they were now proposing taxation to the extent of less than £700,000, they had remitted taxation to the extent of £650,000 since Union. They had discussed these matters “ad nauseam.” They were not proposing more taxation than they had remitted during the last few years. It was highly essential that they should no longer continue with a system of makeshifts. The time had come for them to put the finances of the country on a sound basis.

said he took it that the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been directed to explaining the vote the Opposition proposed to give, and he (Mr. Creswell) was therefore going to explain the vote the Labour Party were going to give. He took it that the House had already agreed that they were going to incur a certain expenditure. Now they came to the point as to the line taxation was going to take. They on those benches had the strongest objection to the orgie of taxation in which South Africa had been engaged. Out of the extravagance of the Government had come a measure in the way of direct taxation. They were going to support this proposal for an income tax as a measure of direct taxation. They did not altogether agree with hon. members in their ideas of economy. Economy was not really not spending money. They believed the public revenue should be increased for purposes for which a great deal of public revenue was required, but they had the strongest objection to the way in which the income tax and the land tax had been proposed as not being mutually dependent upon each other They erred in the good company of the rest of the House. They were going to support the principle of the income tax and very much against the grain, bitterly against the grain, would have to vote on the same side as the Government.

put the motion, as amended, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—63.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—31.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Nathan, Emile

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

The motion, as amended, was accordingly agreed to.

said he wished to propose the next resolution in its amended form. (Cries of “Ha, ha! ” and laughter.)

asked whether the Minister was entitled to move the resolution in the amended form? The Committee was instructed to consider definite resolutions, and he submitted those resolutions should be put first. Then the Minister could move amendments.

said he would move that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again. There were some little Bills with which they could deal. (Laughter.)

This is rather sudden. I would like—

The question is a motion to report progress.

We would like some light thrown on the subject. (Laughter.)

said he proposed reporting progress so that some Bills could be advanced and so provide some work for the other House.

Is that the only reason for taking this extraordinary step? Might the Minister assure the Committee that when we get back we won’t find that there has been another change of policy on the part of the Government? (Laughter.) Has my hon. friend really got the allowance of the recalcitrants on the other side to deal with these proposals? Perhaps the hon. member for Ficksburg or some of his friends might tell the Committee whether the proposals met with their approval. (Laughter.)

said the question before the House was the resolution to report progress.

said that knowing there was an amendment on the paper he was right in asking whether when the Committee met again the Minister was going to put down another amendment to amend that one on the Paper?

said he was sorry there should be that misunderstanding, and he thought that the best way to put an end to it was to withdraw the motion to report progress.

here intimated that if that was the way the proposals were to be treated they would sit through.

The motion to withdraw is withdrawn.

pointed out that they must have the leave of the Committee to do that, and he had an objection. Seeing that the Government had altered their own proposal in a material manner, he had a perfect right to ask the Minister whether, if they agreed to report progress, he was going to make further alterations? The Government did not know their own minds, and had allowed themselves to be dictated to by a section of their own followers. He was very sorry that the right hon. gentleman had lost his temper.

Do not obstruct.

protested that he was not obstructing. He was only seeking for information.

The Minister withdraws his motion. Is there any objection?

said he had a strong objection. He hoped the Minister would not persist in withdrawing the motion, simply from a business point of view. He (Mr. Fremantle) and many other hon. members were not privy to that amendment. It was a simple point, but they had their mornings to go into that question. They had now got an entirely new principle.

That is not before the Committee.

said he was endeavouring to show that the situation had altered so appreciably since last night that it was desirable to carry out the original proposal of the Minister.

That has not been moved.

said that he understood that the Minister had moved to report progress and he was supporting the Minister. He was sorry that the leader of the Opposition had made the speech he had, but it was quite natural for one who held that position to make speeches of that kind, but surely it was no reason why the Minister should alter his proposal. He hoped he would stick to his point and get on with those little Bills with which they could make progress, whereas to do otherwise would waste the time of the House.

wanted to point out another view. The Minister, finding he could not jump over his original proposal, proposed to report progress, but before they did that he (Mr. Creswell) would like to see resolution No. 2 on the records of the Committee.

put he motion, and declared the “Noes” had it.

The motion to report progress was accordingly negatived.

then moved the second proposal: That, from and after the first day of July, 1914, there shall be charged, levied and collected annually throughout the Union for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such conditions and to such exemptions and abatements as may be provided in a law passed during the present session of Parliament, a land tax at the rates and calculated in manner specified hereunder, in respect of the unimproved value of any taxable land owned by any person at noon on the thirtieth day of June, 1914, and on the thirtieth day of June in every year thereafter. “Taxable land ” shall mean land so owned which, being situate outside the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, town council, village council, town board, village management board, or health committee, exceeds 10,000 morgen in extent. There shall be deducted from the unimproved value of the taxable land so owned the sum of £10,000, and the unimproved value of taxable land so owned which remains after that sum has been deducted shall be regarded as the “taxable value” of that taxable land. The rates of land tax in respect of the taxable value of taxable land shall be as follows: (a) Where the taxable value is £1 the rate of land tax shall be one penny; (b) as the taxable value increases, the rate of land per £1 of the taxable value shall increase uniformly at the rate of 1-30,000th of a penny for each £1 of the taxable value until the taxable value is £90,000, so that in respect of a taxable value of £90,000 the rate will be fourpence for every £1 of the taxable value; (c) where the taxable value exceeds £90,000, the rate of land tax shall be fourpence for every £1 of the taxable value. “Unimproved value” shall mean, in relation to taxable land, the sum which that land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions of sale as a bona-fide seller would require, on the assumption that the improvements thereon (if any) did not exist or had never been effected. “Improvements” shall, in relation to land, include (i) the improvements mentioned in section 19 (a) of Act No. 18 of 1912; and (ii) any irrigation work as defined in paragraph (a) of the definition of “irrigation work” in section 2 of Act No. 8 of 1912; provided the benefit thereof is unexhausted.

Proceeding, the Minister said it was not necessary for him at great length to explain the proposal. Hon. members had before them the proposal in its original form, and the proposal with which it was proposed to amend it he had introduced before, but the procedure, as he understood it, was that, as he was moving the proposal, it was incompetent for him to amend this proposal, and one of his colleagues would have to move that, but he would confine himself to the proposal as amended.

rose on a point of order, and said for the Minister to deal with the amendment was making a farce of the procedure of the House.

Let me put the matter right. I think there is something the hon. member fears. Proceeding, he said he would move the original motion, and one of his colleagues would subsequently move the amendment.

said that he moved to delete “the extent of 10,000 morgen,” and to delete “£10,000” and insert “£5,000.”

I am sorry I cannot accept that, as it would mean increased taxation.

If the Minister of Finance is sincere—

The hon. member cannot argue; the amendment is ruled out.

on behalf of the Minister of Finance, moved, as amendments to the taxation proposals on land tax: In the second paragraph of Resolution 2, “Land Tax,” to omit “exceeds 10,000 morgen in extent,” and to substitute “was not beneficially occupied for the twelve months ended on the 30th day of June, 1914.” To omit the third paragraph of Resolution 2, “Land Tax,” and to substitute, “in deciding whether any land has been beneficially occupied, the Commissioner shall consider whether the occupation has been such as, having regard to the extent, nature, and situation of the land, and any natural circumstances affecting its use, constitutes an active and reasonably sufficient utilisation for agricultural, pastoral, or industrial purposes. The Minister may in respect of any areas appoint Boards who shall, under general instructions issued by the Minister, advise the Commissioner as to whether any land situated therein has or has not been beneficially occupied.” In the fourth paragraph of Resolution 2, “Land Tax,” to omit “taxable” wherever it occurs before “value,” and to substitute “unimproved.”

said the amendment involved a new mode of taxation. The House went into Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of considering certain definite proposals—one was the income tax, and another was a tax on the unimproved value of land of over 10,000 morgen in extent and over £10,000 in value. The Minister of Railways had now proposed a tax of an entirely different character, which was not discussed by the House when it went into Committee of Ways and Means. Was it competent for the Committee to deal with new taxation which was not discussed when it went into Committee of Ways and Means without the Minister being able to inform the House that he had the authority of the Governor-General to deal with this taxation? He (Sir Thomas) was within his rights in raising this constitutional question, and he did so to prevent a waste of time. He maintained that the amendment was an entirely new tax. (Cheers.)

He therefore asked the Chairman’s ruling on the point whether this Committee, having gone into Committee of Ways and Means to consider a certain proposal, No. 2 Land Tax, as set forth on page 689 of the Votes and Proceedings, it was now competent for this Committee to entertain this amendment?

asked if, having gone into Committee of Ways and Means on a definite proposal the Committee could now entertain a different proposal. (Hear, hear.) He submitted that they could not.

ruled that the proposed amendment involved no change in principle, but was merely a modification amounting to a reduction of the original proposal, and that it was therefore in order.

Do I understand you to say it is unnecessary to have the Governor-General’s consent to deal with taxation proposals in Committee of Ways and Means?

I did say it. Any taxation proposals must be proposed by a Minister, that’s all. The rule allows the Chairman to accept any proposal for a reduction. I consider the amendment of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to amount to a reduction.

Do I understand we can go into Committee of Ways and Means to tax incomes and that we are then in a position to entertain proposals to tax an imported article provided the revenue is less? I understood the Chairman to say it was so, because the revenue would be less. I thought your ruling was that you allowed this new proposal to be considered because it is a reduction on the original proposal. Does that mean that if we go into Committee to consider an income tax we can consider a Customs proposal because it is less? I should like to know how the same principle is involved in a tax on land not beneficially occupied.

said there was no difference in principle in his motion and the amendment moved by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He (the Minister) had proposed a tax on the unimproved value of land, to which his hon. friend had moved an exemption in favour of land which was beneficially occupied. The taxation of unimproved values as moved by him would not have the same application as the motion for the exemption. Two exemptions to the original motion would have to fall away. How it could be argued that that was changing the nature of the tax he could not understand.

said that two different bases of taxation were involved. He thought it was purely a question of order as to whether it was competent for a Minister to move an alternative system of taxation in that Committee.

said he wished for a ruling on the matter.

I have already given my ruling. The other course open to the hon. member is to ask for the ruling of Mr. Speaker.

said that as it was an important point he would ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether the Minister or any member of the Cabinet was entitled at that stage to bring in a proposal differing from the one on the Order Paper.

I shall move that. It is very advisable to know what the procedure should be on a question of this important character—whether it is competent for the Minister to alter his proposals at this stage. He moved that the Chairman report progress for the purpose of obtaining the Speaker’s ruling as to whether after going into Committee of Ways and Means, and in dealing with proposal No. 2 the Land Tax on page 689 of the Votes and Proceedings it was now competent for the Committee to consider an amendment moved by the hon. Minister for Railways and Harbours on page 739.

The motion was agreed to.

The House resumed.

stated the point which had arisen in Committee, and that the Committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon and that he had accordingly been ordered to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee of Ways and Means is now engaged upon the consideration of the land tax proposal. The question put to me, is whether the amendment as printed on page 739 of the Votes which I understand has been proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours is in order. The principal proposal the Committee is considering is still the same, namely, a Land Tax and the amendment appears to me to be covered by the provisions of Standing Order No. 107, it being in my opinion only in the nature of a reduction.

said he understood that the original proposal was that there should be a tax on land exceeding 10,000 morgen and £10,000 in value. The proposal now before the Committee was to do away with that altogether, and to substitute a new system of taxation—that was a tax on land unbeneficially occupied. The Committee did not know the amount of land unbeneficially occupied in the country. Looking upon it that all land not farmed to the fullest extent was unbeneficially occupied, one inclined to the opinion that the taxation would be far greater than originally proposed.

said they went into Committee on a definite instruction to tax land only exceeding 10,000 morgen in extent. This now seemed to him to extend to all land, and that the tax imposed would be very much greater than that originally imposed.

That would be a matter within the province of the Treasurer to say as to whether this taxation would produce a greater result than the result proposed under the original motion.

said they had got a definite instruction from the House only to tax land over 10,000 morgen in extent. Was it now competent for the Committee to consider the taxation of land under 10,000 morgen?

said that if it were a question of reduction, there would be no question about it. They had got a definite instruction to deal with a definite tax on land exceeding 10,000 morgen in extent and exceeding £10,000 in value. They were now asked to reduce that. They were now asked to entertain a new principle, namely, that all land was to be taxed, but not land beneficially occupied. That was a new principle upon which they had no instructions from the House.

He knew it was usual to take the statement of the Government that taxation would not be greater, but when it was obvious that no man in this country could ascertain what land was beneficially occupied it was asking too much of any Government to tell the House that the effect of this tax would be less. Could they entertain a new principle altogether without instructions of the House?

said his hon. friend had not fairly put the situation. The original proposal was a land tax in respect of the unimproved value of any land.

Over 10,000 morgen.

Over 10,000 morgen in extent and £10,000 in value. What has been done now is to limit the taxation of the unimproved value of land by an exemption. All land beneficially occupied is exempt. I submit this is not a case where there is a change in the principle of the tax, but only an additional exemption introduced.

This strikes me as merely a reduction in taxation. Of course it will depend on the definition in the Bill of the words “beneficially occupied.”

That is the very point. It is not defined. We don’t know what “beneficially occupied” means. We are asked to go into something upon which no man can give an opinion.

Rules and regulations have still to be published as to the meaning of “beneficially occupied.”

I don’t think I outfit to be forced to say that I am of opinion that this involves an increase. I could not be driven to that conclusion. This is a land tax. The House is in Committee considering a land tax, and as at present provided I am clearly of opinion this alternative proposal is contemplated in Rule 107.

said he thought the proposal should be dealt with in two parts. First, it was a clear reduction over blocks of 10,000 morgen in extent and £10,000 in value. But with regard to blocks of land under 10,000 morgen in extent and £10,000 in value, the House has given no mandate to the Committee to consider the taxation of smaller blocks. He asked for a ruling as to whether that part of the motion was in order.

said that perhaps the House was not right in asking Mr. Speaker to give a hasty ruling on this subject. They considered it was not so much the question of whether more or less taxation would be derived, but a principle was at stake in connection with taxation. As they would be bound by this ruling, he suggested that Mr. Speaker might give a considered judgment at a later stage. Perhaps, therefore, it would be as well to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

said he had been asked a definite question, and whether he had ample time to consider this important point or not he was compelled to give his decision whether he liked it or not. (Laughter.) As far as he could see, with a knowledge of the proceedings that had taken place, and the rules and the fact that the hon. member himself did not suggest that this would impose a greater burden on the people, it would not be proper for him to make a suggestion that he should not be called upon that night to give his decision.

left the chair, and the House resumed in Committee of Ways and Means.

reported that Mr. Speaker had affirmed his ruling.

asked the Minister whether the revenue that would accrue would be greater than under the other proposal?

said it was extremely difficult to assess what would be the proceeds of a tax like this, either in its original or its amended form. They were proceeding without a very extensive experience of what a tax like this would produce. His own idea was that the tax in its amended form would produce less than the original proposal. The idea of the Government in proposing this tax had been twofold, as he explained in the Budget statement. Partly, the object was to get additional revenue, but in addition to that there was a question of policy—the question of forcing on the beneficial occupation of land. (Cheers.) One of the evils from which this country was suffering was that large tracts of land were not beneficially occupied, with the result that whereas on the one hand there was a large population clamouring for land, on the other hand there was land which was not beneficially occupied. It was the policy of the Government not only to get revenue but also to further this policy of development. In its original form there were some objections to the tax as proposed by the Government. The idea was to make the tax work easily and not to go into the value of every bit of land, which would mean a lot of machinery and figuring. That largely accounted for the high exemption in the first proposal.

That was the objection, and in a certain sense a grave objection, to the tax in its original form. It was possible by going straight for the object they had in view (cheers and laughter)—to sweep away the exemption. The tax would now apply to all land which was not beneficially occupied, whether the area was more or less than 10,000 morgen. The other objection also fell away, because he did not see if land remained vacant why there should be this exemption of £10,000. If a man did not use his land he did not deserve the sympathy of the country. Therefore both these exemptions fell away. The tax, which would bring in a fairly considerable revenue, would also further the policy of land settlement. (Hear, hear.) They were now face to face with another difficulty—the definition of beneficial occupation. It was the difficulty surrounding the definition which had at first deterred the Government from adopting the principle. The amendment was sufficiently elastic to meet all the cases which were likely to arise. Naturally, they wanted an elastic definition. There might be an area for which it was very difficult to obtain water, and in judging of the possibilities of occupation that fact should be taken into consideration. The definition in the amendment was taken substantially from the Natal Act of 1908. It worked well for two years previous to Union. The proposal as it stood introduced the additional idea that the Minister might appoint Boards to advise the Commissioner whether land was beneficially occupied or not. It would be impossible for one individual and his officers to decide in every part of the Union whether land was or was not beneficially occupied. The Commissioner was the authority, the Boards were simply Advisory Boards. Power was also taken for the Minister to lay down instructions for those Boards, and it was very desirable that they should proceed on uniform lines. The proposal was workable, the idea of beneficial occupation was a difficult one, but if it were brought into operation it would not be difficult to force on beneficial occupation in every part of the Union where land could be so occupied.

asked whether, in view of the fact that the Minister had been allowed to bring forward an alternative proposal the same facilities would be given to other members of the House?

said if the hon. member would put the matter in a concrete form he would give a ruling.

said it seemed to him there were two aspects of the case. There was the matter of revenue and the matter of the indirect tax. The matter of revenue did not seem to be of great importance. The Minister had justified the amendment on the ground that people of the country would be taxed less and therefore he would get less.

He thought it would be interesting to know what amount of revenue would be obtained in that matter. The Opposition had given expression to their opinion by their vote that night. They thought the extra revenue would not be required. He was not at all satisfied with the proposal in its amended form, although he believed it was better and fairer than the original one but he was not satisfied that it was going to produce what was required. He had recollections of discussions they had had in the Transvaal Parliament as to what constituted beneficial occupation. So far as he could recollect, he thought it was decided on one occasion that if two or three animals were grazed on a farm for three months that would be beneficial occupation, and he did not know whether that sort of thing was now going to decide what was beneficial occupation. He believed from the ruling of Mr. Speaker that it was possible for a member to make fresh proposals. He would therefore throw out a suggestion to the Minister—that was that some procedure such as this should be followed, that taxation should be applicable to all and, but that the taxation should be less when the land was in an inaccessible position, and that it should be greater when it was closer to railway communication. People near the railways were better able beneficially to occupy their land. In past sessions they had been asked to vote a great amount of money for the construction of railway lines in outlying portions of the Union. One of the effects had been that they had enormously improved the value of the land through which they passed. For some time to come many of those lines would not pay, and therefore there was a loss in their working which had to be made up by increased rates over other lines. If his proposal found favour he thought it would have the effect that people who had the benefit from the railway would in turn have to pay something for getting that advantage.

said he thought the last speaker’s suggestion was something the Committee should give some weight to, because it was on all fours with land taxation. There were certain mineral values which were not paying adequate taxation. He wanted to ask the Minister one or two questions, because it was only fair to the Committee that he should make himself quite clear as to what his proposals meant. The Minister had said that the effect of the new proposal would not increase the amount of taxation. His first proposal was not that not a square inch of land under 10,000 morgen would be taxed. Instead of that, they had a very hazy exemption indeed. Land, whether of only a few acres, was going to be taxed, irrespective of area or value. If that proposal of taxation of non-beneficial occupation was genuine, it must be clear to any member who had seen the vast areas not beneficially occupied that this taxation would embrace a much wider area and yield a larger revenue than the original proposal.

Pastoral.

Pastoral! What does that mean? Let us examine the pastoral land, say, between Johannesburg and Pretoria.

All poor people.

I know some of those people. (Laughter.) Poor souls! You see thousands of morgen not beneficially occupied.

All beneficially occupied.

All beneficially occupied! I know who that is. That is the hon. member for Vrededorp. (Laughter.) It appeared that we were going to have what happened under the Transvaal Gold Law. Under this law agricultural lands were excluded, with the result that in gold areas there were little plantations simply for the purpose of enabling the owner to “collar ” more land. He would move that progress be reported. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) Was the Minister going to accept that motion?

No.

said it was more than the officials and members could stand, sitting late four nights a week. Some of them started work at 10.30 this morning.

I will accept the motion. (Hear, hear.)

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.