brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

moved that the schedule be printed and the report be considered in Committee on Monday next.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the resolutions in respect of those proposals be considered.

Any objection to the consideration of the report?

said, that he wanted to know if it was in order to put two resolutions in their present form.

I settled that point last night.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the resolutions be adopted.

said that before the motion was put he wished to move an amendment that the resolutions be referred back to the Committee of Ways and Means. He considered that the amendments which had been moved into the Government proposals since they had been transmitted from the House to the Committee of Ways and Means had been sufficient to nullify the whole of those proposals, and he thought the House should have an opportunity of going into the question again: especially after the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Clanwilliam (Mr. Watermeyer), and as the Committee had not the opportunity of discussing that amendment owing to the hon. Minister having moved the closure, he was now moving that the report be considered. The Prime Minister had said that it might be argued that the system proposed by the Government was not the best, and if that was so, why did not hon. members on that side of the House assist the Government by putting forward proposals that were workable? The Prime Minister had also said that they on the Government side of the House were like watchers on the walls of Zion. (Laughter.) If that was so, all he (Sir Thomas Smartt) could say was, “Lord help the walls of Zion.” (Laughter.) As a matter of fact, the Government had run away from its proposals.

Who ran away last night? (Labour cheers.)

said his reason for moving that the report be reconsidered was to show that the Government had run away from its proposals. That reference of the Prime Minister, to the walls of Zion, was, he thought, likely to become historical, at least from a cartoonist’s point of view. The Prime Minister had said it was necessary to warn people when they were going in the wrong direction, but what had Ministers to say in regard to their action over the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam?

The hon. Minister had said that he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had run away from his proposals. He had said that if he (Sir T. W. Smartt) thought the proposal was a sham he should not vote for it, but they (the Ministerialists) would vote for it because they knew the proposal would make a great improvement in the state of affairs in this country, that if they carried on those proposals honestly and genuinely—mark the words—they were going to make a great improvement in the condition of this country. The Minister had wound up with a most admirable peroration which made him (Sir T. W. Smartt) inclined to say that though he objected to the Government running away from their proposals, although they were of a milk and water character he would vote for them. The Minister concluded his speech with that admirable peroration, by saying that the practical difficulties were great, that he knew that for some years, at any rate, until the system became accepted it would continue to create a difficulty; but let them make a start. Proceeding, Sir T. W. Smartt asked, was the Government making a start? A member of the House moved a proposal which was entirely opposed to that of the hon. Minister’s speech, and the Minister moved the closure without saying whether it was the intention of the Government to accept the amendment. It was the privilege of every member of that House to have an opportunity of discussing proposals of that nature. It was the duty of the Government to give every member an opportunity and it ill-became anyone when an amendment of that sort was moved to sit still while the closure was being moved without the Government letting them know whether they were again going to run away from their responsibilities. It brought discredit on Parliament and the country which sent representatives, to submit to such a position. For two days they had discussed new principles of taxation in the proposals— whether it was advisable to impose a taxation on land. They had been told that it should be on all lands over a certain amount. The Minister waxed eloquent in wrath because he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had said that it looked as if the Government did not intend to carry out the second proposal with much determination. It was not a member of the Government who had introduced the final proposal. The hon. member for Clanwilliam had come to their assistance by moving an amendment which was directly opposed to the proposals advocated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) had said that he had welcomed the sentiments and the principles adopted by the Prime Minister. He wanted to know what had taken place to have caused the change of front of last night. The Minister knew as well as he did that in the proposals now before the House they should do nothing practical within the next twelve months. The Minister knew it would be necessary to appoint officers to draw up schedules showing the amount of land which would not be beneficially occupied, and they would have to create machinery which would cost a lot of money. In the period of financial stress the Minister asked them to set up machinery which would cost a lot of money, and that machinery would not come into operation in a proper way for a number of years. Then the Ministry had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. It meant that the proposal would cost more money than could possibly be raised by the tax. He said unhesitatingly that it was making Responsible Government a farce, and the people would soon find that out. He proposed that the proposals be recommitted, to the Committee of Ways and Means.

said he had listened with attention to the excited remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member was like a machine which was wound up tightly and then let loose. He (the speaker) must say that he, and he was sure the whole House, had listened with a smile to the peroration of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. But the hon. member had no right to come here and make reflections on the dignity of Ministers. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought he and his side of the House had shown last night that they were determined to uphold the dignity of the House, and he could tell the hon. member that when the dignity of the House was to be upheld, when the authority of the Chair was to be upheld, he would always do so. But his hon. friend last night ran away. (Ministerial cheers.) In the circumstances it ill became the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to come here and reflect on their dignity. (Ministerial cheers.) Whatever happened his (the speaker’s) side of the House, and he was pleased to say that he was sure also a good many hon. members on the other side of the House, would see to it that the Chair was upheld. (Ministerial cheers.) And now the Leader of the Opposition, in his peroration, told the House that the proposals of the Government were “milk and water proposals.” If that was so, why then did the hon. member nearly “jump out of his skin?” (Ministerial cheers.)

To him (the speaker) it was clear that the Leader of the Opposition had made a grievous blunder, which he was now anxious to put right by some means or other. (Hear, hear.) And now, therefore, the hon. member wanted to go back into Committee of Ways and Means.

We had no chance of discussing the amendment yesterday.

The amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam had been supported by the Government because it was an honest, straightforward attempt at doing something good, and they had not looked for anything behind it, like the Leader of the Opposition. If one had not stood behind doors one did not seek to find someone else there. (Hear, hear.) They had taken the amendment as an honest and right step—and that was why they voted for it. They had voted for it because they agreed that it was in the interest of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) Of course he knew of the differences which existed among hon. members opposite in regard to the land tax They knew nothing would satisfy some hon. members unless a land tax was placed on every acre of unploughed land, while some hon. members even went so far as to hold that provision should be made for compulsory expropriation. (Hear, hear.) When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth made his proposal to make the income tax an annual tax, the Government accepted the proposal, because they agreed with the views put forward. (Hear, hear.) But they could not be consistent now unless they accepted the same provision in regard to the land tax, and made the land tax an annual tax as well. They took it that as soon as they accepted that principle on the income tax they had to do the same in regard to the land tax—and the whole principle had been fully discussed on the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. member for Clanwilliam had not proposed this amendment, he (the speaker) was sure that the Minister of Finance himself would have proposed it. (Ministerial cheers.)

And he moved the closure immediately after.

Now the Leader of the Opposition came here with a great oration, and said that they were creating costly machinery, and that immediately this costly machinery had been established it would be abolished. Did not the same apply to the income tax, he asked? The proposal had been accepted on the income tax to place a sort of a check in favour of the economic interests of the country in regard to revenue. (Hear, hear.) Did not the same apply to the land tax? If they imposed a land tax which proved to be absolutely opposed to the interests of the country, then by this amendment they had the opportunity of putting matters right next year. The amendment, he claimed, was in the interest of landowners in the country. (Ministerial cheers.) But they could not separate the one matter from the other. His (the speaker’s) side of the House had from time to time expressed itself honestly and openly as being in favour of a land tax, though, perhaps, not the same kind of land tax as that favoured by the Leader of the Opposition. If they looked into the history of the past they would see that when this question was discussed on public platforms he and others had always made it clear that they were not against a land tax, but that they were against large areas, of land lying idle and vacant, and that they considered that such farms should bear certain taxation. This applied not only to the land of companies, but also to the land of private individuals who allowed that land to lie idle. There was no necessity to get scared of the proposals, and in the circumstances he would oppose the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.

said that as one of the older members of Parliament he extremely regretted the incident that had occurred. He regretted very much the incident that had occurred in the House the previous night, the first of the kind that had occurred since he had been a member. His right hon. friend the Prime Minister had spoken about the hon. member for Fort Beaufort having left the House and not supported the Chair. But what was the position of affairs? The position of affairs was brought about by the action of the Government. (Hear, hear.) The Government must see this. He wanted the Government to realise that it was not right for a Government in the majority to take advantage of the House of Parliament.

They had had a debate on that question of the land tax for a day and a half. At the very last moment his hon. friend the member for Clanwilliam (Mr. Watermeyer) had moved an amendment which entirely altered the principle. (Opposition cheers and Ministerial dissent.) If the amendment of the hon. member was immaterial, why had the Government attached so much importance to it? Surely his hon. friend the Minister of Finance must have known that that amendment was going to be moved, and it was moved with his cognisance? The Government had accepted that amendment. In reply, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) had got up and continued the debate, and hon. members on his side of the House were considering what the effect of the amendment was when the Minister of Finance got up and moved the closure. He thought it was not treating Parliament fairly. If the Government approved of the amendment, it should give Parliament time to discuss the amendment, and consider whether it was material or not. It was obvious that hon. members on the opposite side of the House had considered it material. The Prime Minister had just said that unless the hon. member (Mr. Watermeyer) had moved it, the Minister of Finance would have had to move it. (Opposition cheers.) He (Sir E. H. Walton) was not putting the question from a party point of view—(hear, hear)—but from the point of view of Parliament. He said it was not the right thing to move the closure on the discussion of that amendment as had been done. The little scene they had had —the first of that kind he had seen in Parliament—had occurred, he thought, because several hon. members, especially those on the cross-benches, felt themselves labouring under a sense of injustice, and as a man would, feeling a sense of injustice, broke the rules of the House—

was understood to interpose that the Chairman had done so.

went on to say that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), moved by a spirit of generosity, and feeling that hon. members on the cross-benches had not been given the privileges members of Parliament were entitled to, felt that Parliament itself was not being properly treated. He (Sir E. H. Walton) put that question to the Government that whether they thought that amendment was material or not they should have given Parliament an opportunity of discussing it, and members had not had that opportunity. The Prime Minister had said that he would not allow Parliament to consider the question whether the amendment was material. He had said that if one applied it to the income tax it was equally fair to the land tax. In regard to the income tax, however, he (Sir E. H. Walton) pointed out they had the machinery ready made, and all they had got to do was to get the men to work and in a couple of months they had the machinery at work. The Minister knew perfectly well that it would take a long time to create and organise the machinery for the collection of the land tax, and everybody who had any experience of public affairs knew that in regard to the land tax it would be impossible to do the work in a year. It was impracticable.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had said that it was deplorable that such incidents as had taken place the previous night should have taken place. They on the cross-benches fully deplored that such incidents should take place, but unlike the Prime Minister, who seemed to think that authority must be supported at all costs, whether right or wrong, they on those benches believed that there were times when they must impeach authority and show when authority was acting illegally. (Labour cheers.) He hoped that by such proceedings and by the country seeing how their own institutions were continually endangered by the present Government, the country would see that the constitution of that Parliament was such that such scenes as had taken place the previous night would not be allowed to take place in future. (Hear, hear.) There were many hon. members over there who cared no more for the dignity of Parliament —(The rest of the hon. member’s remarks was drowned in shouts of “Order.”)

No; the hon. member must not impute motives to hon. members.

Was there, he asked, ever a situation where it was more urgently necessary, in the interests of the good name of Parliament, to do what they did to reverse what took place last night in every particular, to recommit this thing, and deliver this House out of the position it was placed in by the mere petulant outburst of temper—a petulant outburst worthy of a small child of ten—of which the Minister of Defence was guilty, and which was not in accord with his own well-considered judgment? It was mere temper, mere annoyance, that his own desire to close the debate by half-past eleven seemed endangered. As to the proceedings last night, one thing that was clear was: that if the Minister was within his rights in getting up while another hon. member was on his legs, that right was accorded, if it were accorded, only under contemplation of certain contingencies, under the contemplation of this contingency, viz., of abuse of the contrary rule, of a member keeping on speaking and speaking and abusing the closure. His hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) had been on his feet about five minutes when the Minister introduced the closure motion, thinking more of his own command of the House than of the dignity and usefulness of Parliament. No greater object-lesson could be given of the utter lack of consideration which the Government gave to their own proposals. Until they looked very carefully into those proposals, their full significance did not burst upon them. He did not believe that the Minister of Railways, when he moved his amendment, or the Minister of Finance, when he accepted that amendment, understood what the significance of the resolution would have been if agreed to, without the amendment, of the hon. member for Clan william. The position of most hon. members was that if the Minister’s amendment had been carried, this House would have committed itself to the principle in every future year of taxing such land as during the preceding twelve months was not beneficially occupied; but, under the amendment as moved, that would not have been the position at all. What they asked the House to accept was that the whole of the land of Africa was to be divided into two portions. In one portion they had all that land which in the twelve months ending June 30 had not been beneficially occupied. On the other side, they had all the rest of the land. That meant that land which during that particular twelve months was not beneficially occupied would during the continuance of this legislation always be subject to land value taxation, whether improved afterwards or not improved afterwards. Other land might fall out of use, out of beneficial occupation, but it would not come under the operation of the land tax. That was the sort of way in which the Government brought their legislation to this House.

At the last moment, at the eleventh hour, the hon. member for Clanwilliam was put up to move an amendment to make it an annual tax, to make the whole tax, as had been pointed out already, as futile and as silly and as useless as, no doubt, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance almost meant it to be from the beginning. Because of his Oriental autocracy, for they were acts of an Oriental despot—

No, no; the hon. member must refer with decency to hon. members. (Ministerial cheers.)

I withdraw it, if you require me. I am only describing the Minister of Finance in the precise terms that he described himself.

The hon. member must describe him in Parliamentary language.

said that the Minister of Finance, with his taste for the methods of Oriental despotism—(laughter)—in the course of about five minutes after this important amendment had been introduced rudely interrupted the hon. member for Springs for the purpose of moving the closure. Did they, or did they not, remember when, a few weeks ago, the Minister proposed these closure resolutions, with what assurance he argued in this House that that power would be used with the utmost consideration for minorities in this House? (Hear, hear.)

at this stage interjected a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

I don’t think the Prime Minister was in his place last night. He had deputed his duties to the Minister of Finance. To interject in that way and pretend that he knows what was in our mind in objecting to this closure—well, how does he know it? Doesn’t he know that the rules of the closure forbid you to discuss the matter of the closure. There is one breach of faith. As soon as they had got the power, they used it ruthlessly. Have we not got experience of that when they had the power under Martial Law—ruthless disregard of the rights of others? That is what is making them so utterly unpopular in the country.

Proceeding, Mr. Cresweli recalled how a few weeks ago, when asking the House to consent to go into Committee of Ways and Means, the Minister of Finance glibly told them that they should get to grips at once with this matter and have a full discussion on it, “How quickly,” exclaimed Mr. Creswell, “he forgets his promises! That is the reason why the Minister is not trusted by the country, and we know that he is not trusted by his friends. (Hear, hear.) We recognise his talent, in spite of his action, and we recognise what great worth he could be to this country if he could only learn that the people of this country appreciate straight dealing, and that sort of slimness which makes you incapable of relying upon his word from one week-end to another is not a reputation that he should acquire if he wishes to be of real use to South Africa.” Mr. Creswell went on to say that they had not one qualm about the action they took last night. His only regret was that his hon. friend the member for Greyville was not here to lend his voice to their protest to-day. For these reasons and for every reason, he cordially supported the motion to re-commit and try and retrieve the error of which this House was guilty last night. (Labour cheers.) He hoped the Minister would recognise that petulant ill-temper should not have any part in the conduct of the deliberations of the House.

said he wished to deny the statement that he had been put up to propose the amendment at the last moment. He did not intend to speak on this matter at all yesterday, but at the last moment he asked the Prime Minister if he might move the adjournment. The Prime Minister intimated that the Government wished to close the debate last night. That was all that transpired. He had been listening to remarks on the proposals of the Government very carefully, and he came to the conclusion that the definition of “beneficial occupation” could be read in so many ways that he did not feel it was wise or safe to pass a clause which was open to so many interpretations, and he thought it was only wise that he should move that the tax be imposed for one year only. (Hear, hear.) When he proposed his amendment the hour was so late that he cut his observations very short, and threw his amendment on the floor of the House thinking that he had done his duty to the—(An Hon. Member: “Party”) —proposal. To insinuate that there was any back door movement in the matter or that he would be guilty of doing anything in an underhand way was entirely wrong. (Cheers.)

said that when the member for Jeppe rose he thought it was to express some regret for the unprecedented scene, and one which they hoped not to have again. Instead of that the House had just had to listen to the hon. member for Jeppe about the dignity of Parliament—(laughter)—and the institutions of the country being in danger. (Ministerial laughter.) Who was endangering the institutions of the country? Who was bringing this Parliament into contempt? (Ministerial cheers.)

You.

proceeded to say that hon. members on the cross-benches were doing their best in this House and in other parts of South Africa to break down the South Africa Act and to bring Parliament into disrepute. This was being done without expressing the least regret. He (the Minister) thought the member for Port Elizabeth had put the case quite fairly, and put the best construction on what his leader did last night. Last night he (the Minister) had looked on the hon. member opposite (the Leader of the Opposition) and at his doings and speeches and he was amazed that a member who led a great party in this country should play a part like that, rushing out of the House and leaving it to his followers to vote as they liked, and to his colleagues to support the dignity of the House. (Ministerial cheers.) He (the Minister) could not understand a man who led a party in this country behaving like that. He was sure that the hon. member lost his temper, lost his head, and behaved accordingly. (Ministerial laughter.) Continuing, the Minister said he did not wish to say very much on the main point which had been raised, namely, that the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam entirely altered the character of the resolution before the Committee. He did not understand that argument, and it was of no more force in relation to the land tax proposal than in relation to the income tax proposal. (Ministerial cheers.) On the contrary, he thought the whole effect of the arguments they listened to yesterday was that they were dealing in the land tax proposals with an inherently difficult matter, requiring even more consideration in the future than did the income tax proposals. (Hear, hear.) When years ago the land tax was introduced into the Cape Colony, and it was made an annual tax, was objection taken to that? (Ministerial cheers.)

It was not this land tax.

That is my argument. Continuing, the Minister said with regard to this special proposal which the Government had brought before the House they were bound to give it grave consideration.

When the hon. member for Victoria West attempted some years ago to introduce a proposal with regard to beneficial occupation he had to give up the idea because he did not know how to define it. The idea had worked in Natal for two years, but it was full of the greatest difficulties. Enormous latitude would have to be left to the officials. He would have concluded that if there ever was a case for making the tax an annual one so that it might be reconsidered next year, it was this land tax. (Hear, hear.) But he (the Minister) found motives that appealed to him did not appeal to the hon. member opposite, whose mind appeared to run in a curious way.

On a more straight line.

said the hon. member had asked why get this cumbersome machinery together for a year only, and run the risk of the machinery being rendered futile next year. But exactly the same argument could be used in regard to the income tax. It would take just as much time to set the one in operation as the other. If the one tax was annual let the other be annual too, so that the circumstances surrounding their incidence could be reconsidered from time to time if Parliament wished to do so. The hon. member said, “This was such a novel proposal that it ought to be discussed.” For the reasons he (the Minister) gave when the hon. member for Clanwilliam moved the amendment, he looked upon it as entirely in keeping with what the committee had already done in regard to the previous resolution. In fact it was necessary. If the amendment of the Minister of Railways had passed as it stood, it would have led to difficulties in the future, and it was necessary to have an amendment.

Who drafted it?

On all these grounds that I have mentioned it was most politic and necessary to have this an annual provision, just like the other one.

He did not look upon the amendment as affecting the main proposals at all, nor did it alter them any more than that the income tax was altered by the amendment moved by the hon. member. Continuing, he said the House had been discussing these proposals over and over again and the same arguments had been used ad nauseam; it was a late hour, and the opinion of the House appeared to be general that the discussion should be brought to a conclusion. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) had moved to report progress, and when that motion was defeated, he (Mr. Madeley) went on to repeat all the old arguments, so that it was not only clear that the matter had been fully discussed, but the subsequent proceedings showed that they were in the nature of obstruction. He therefore felt it to be his duty to move as he had done. The proceedings of the House had lapsed into such a state that the only proper thing to do was to move the closure. It was the duty of the Government, and members of the House, to protect itself. His hon. friend opposite (Sir Thos. Smartt) had said that the matter was of such importance that the House should again be given an opportunity of discussing it. But his hon. friend forgot that he could have the opportunity in the ordinary course of procedure. These proposals would have to be embodied in a Bill, which would have to pass through the House, when an opportunity would be given for the fullest discussion to take place. He submitted that when the House went into Committee they could deal with these proposals in any way they wished. (Cries of dissent.) He noticed there were so many members wishing to show their knowledge of the Rules of the House that he felt abashed, and would therefore keep quiet on that point. As he had already stated, there would be an opportunity when the Bill came before the House of discussing all these proposals over again, and that being so, he did not think any sound reason had been shown for the amendment that had been moved by the member for Fort Beaufort.

said he would like, as one of the humble sub-watchers on the walls spoken of by the Prime Minister to state his views of the case. He did not agree with, the proposal of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), because what was the good, of going on talking and discussing these matters all over again, which they all knew the inwardness of? He wanted, however, to make his position clear, because he was opposed to this tax on the land and also the income tax. He maintained that they were taxing the people when there was no need for it, and he wondered what the people inside Jerusalem — (laughter)— thought of them, when they were putting these taxes on their shoulders for which there was no need. The House had just been in Committee of Ways and Means but he would like to know what ways and means were involved? There might be ways but there were no means in it. Because this land tax was not for the purpose of revenue but for the purpose of breaking up large estates. He congratulated the hon. member for Clanwilliam, for whose ability he had always entertained the highest regard, on what had taken place, because what could not have been done by means of talk had been done by his amendment by making those proposals to look absurd. Ha (Mr. Merriman) left the House crushed last night after the somewhat ponderous, but, he must add, perfectly gentlemanlike attack made upon him by the Prime Minister; but hon. members had to remember that they were sent to that House not to look after the interests of the Prime Minister but after the interests of the people. He would like to know what the principles had been that were inscribed upon the banners of the South African Party when it went out to war? Why, one of those inscriptions had been “No land tax.”

Let him point out first of all that they did not require that taxation. If they took their Estimates back—and they need not economise very much they would find they did not need that taxation. Then why should they put it on? (Cheers.) It was clear from what had been said on the Opposition side of the House and from the Labour benches, that the object of the proposal was to break up the land, but that was the wrong way of doing it. The land was getting broken up. He had been surprised on seeing how land in the Free State was getting broken up into very small farms—they had people with farms of 150 morgen. To say that people who wanted to get on to the land could not get on to the land was not the case. Those people found it unfortunately better to drift to Johannesburg, and a tax of that kind would not do any good in that respect. He was not going to criticise what the Prime Minister had said about ranching, because he did not understand it. He was in favour of breaking up the land by a natural process. There was no fixed policy in this matter. When he entered Parliament long since, there was an agitation to do away with the Roman-Dutch law of inheritance, which law undoubtedly led to the division of land; this was carried. He had been in a small opposition against the policy then and he was now. The late Mr. Rhodes—a name mentioned with respect in this House—had a notion, faulty it seemed to him (the speaker), in favour of primogeniture with the object of keeping land together. He instanced those things to show how they changed in that House One year they were in favour of cattle ranching, and next year they wanted to tax the cattle rancher out of existence—they just drifted along. Nothing would get it out of his mind that that thing had been jerked suddenly on the Table by the Minister of Finance, and altered so that its own father would not know it, and finally extinguished by nis hon. friend the member for Clanwilliam— that it was due to the Socialist wave. He would oppose the motion to go back into Committee, because he was opposed to the proposals. He would vote against the income tax and the land tax, because they were not required at the present time, and he was opposed to taxing people when there was no need to tax them. He hoped the Prime Minister would not resent his remarks. (Laughter.) He would present him with another quotation from the book he loves: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Cheers and laughter.)

said that the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam the previous night had materially altered the proposals of the Minister of Finance. The whole affair had been most regrettable, and there was no credit attached to the Minister of Finance. Of course, the House should support the Chair, but the Minister of Finance was not the right person to put the Chair into that position. On an important amendment, moved by a private member, without any debate of any kind taking place, the Minister of Finance had moved the closure. It was true that the hon. member for Springs had repeated arguments, and was called to order by the Chair. There was no doubt that the members of the cross-benches had frequently and repeatedly wasted the time of the House. But they were not the only guilty people, members on the Government back benches had been equally guilty. Let them take the Budget debate, for instance. There was no doubt in his mind that the Minister of Finance had committed an act which, on consideration, he would think was ill-advised.

There was no doubt in his (Colonel Crewe’s) mind that it was not the right time or place to move the closure. With much regret he witnessed a scene such as he had not witnessed during the fifteen years he had been in Parliament, and he hoped that he would never witness it again. Proceedings of that character would make the country look upon Parliament with some degree of anxiety. Instead of hearing one word of regret from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, they had made a party attack on the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The Prime Minister charged the hon. member for Fort Beaufort with not being satisfied with any land tax proposals that did not include expropriation. He defied the Prime Minister to find any such statement of such a policy in any speech made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He (Colonel Crewe) had always held the view that the only way of bringing about closer settlement was by the judicious purchase of land and its subdivision. He came especially to the reasons for the recommitment of these proposals. There was one great difference between the income tax and the land tax, and that was explained by the Prime Minister when he said that the income tax was for revenue purposes, and he indicated the difference when he said that the land tax was guided by policy, and that it was not expected to bring in any material revenue The hon. member for Fort Beaufort pointed out that the machinery of the one was simple and the machinery of the other costly and cumbersome. It would only be justified if they were going to continue the land tax policy. But the hon. member for Clanwilliam showed that there was no majority on the other side prepared to support a real policy of land taxation, and that being so, the Minister might as well drop his land tax proposals. He would go back to the position of the previous night. He did not think there would have been any objection in that House to the application of the closure if there had been no amendments such as that moved by the hon. member for Clanwilliam. Had there been no such amendment, the application of the closure would not have been unjustifiable. But he was certain that that House in Committee of Ways and Means, having decided on a definite policy of taxation, it could not be altered at any future stage.

The Minister of Finance led the House from one stage to another. He said that if the House would help him over one stage he would give full and free discussion in the next. In the next stage that important amendment was put forward, and the Minister of Finance immediately imposed the closure. That was not fair to the House. That was not right. Nothing on earth the Minister could say could put the matter right.

made an interjection, which was inaudible.

That is exactly what you did do. Continuing, he said he thought that it was done in a moment of haste and heat, and he hoped, before the debate closed to hear an expression of regret from the Minister for his action. It was quite clear that it would be impossible to alter the words that they altered in Committee on the previous night, to reverse them so that they would be in the position they were in the Minister’s proposals. That was an absolute impossibility, he believed. It was because of that that he did protest against the closure being applied on an occasion of that kind. Precedents were created and they would, perhaps, be used by other people. He protested equally strongly against the doctrine of the hon. member for Jeppe, who said something to the effect that it was possible to impeach the authority of the House when it acted illegally. He did not think the Chairman acted illegally the previous night. From the rules the Minister of Finance was entitled to move the closure at any stage. Whether it was advisable or not was another matter. It was wrong of members who thought themselves unjustly treated to take the law into their own hands, as the hon. members on the cross-benches did the previous night and defy the Chair. That was equally wrong. It was possible for a member to bring his just grievances before the House, and the House would consider the matter, whatever quarter it came from. He hoped the Minister would take the lesson of the previous night to heart. It was well to be a little steady, considerate, and wise before one jumped in and used machinery which was only set up for use in extreme and urgent cases. There was no extreme case on the previous night, and in consequence of what was done these painful scenes happened.

said he had listened very carefully to the Minister’s explanation and the explanation of the hon. member for Clan-william. The proceedings last night reflected the incompetence of the Ministry. He agreed with the sentiments of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance such as expressed in the peroration of his speech, hut only wished to goodness he carried them out. If the hon. member for Clanwilliam was right, and he had no doubt the hon. member was right, what were they to think of the ability of the Ministry which went and accepted from a private member a most important amendment?

said he entirely agreed with hon. members opposite in regard to the procedure. He did not see why the Opposition should not have been given an opportunity of discussing the amendment. In regard to the income tax, there was a special reason why it should be an annual tax, because the idea of an income tax being annual was that it was brought in to deal with financial difficulties which were supposed to last for one year, and might then pass away. The land tax was devised to deal with a great social question which could not pass away in one year; therefore the argument fell to the ground in regard to any parallel. He (Mr. Fremantle) was in favour of both taxes being made annual, but for a different reason. In the case of the land tax he thought it had not been thought out well, and therefore he thought it should have been simply for one year only. He was strongly made uneasy by the arguments put forward that afternoon by the Prime Minister, who had said that if the hon. member (Mr. Watermeyer) had not moved the amendment the Ministry would have moved it. Why had not the Ministry moved it? (Hear, hear.) They introduced a motion of their own. The Minister of Finance had tried to introduce an amendment, but found he could not, and had put it on the Minister of Railways and Harbours to do so. It plainly showed it was an afterthought and that the memory of the Prime Minister was faulty in regard to the motives of the Ministry in regard to that matter. The Minister now said the proposal which he got his colleague to propose was ridiculous. But no one had discovered this until the hon. member for Jeppe had called attention to it that afternoon. The Ministry were now discovering the ridiculousness of their own proposals within a few days. In view of these circumstances it did seem to him more than it did last night that it was a most improper procedure for the Minister to have moved the closure when he did. He was not clear that it was the rule of the House that the closure could be moved in the middle of an hon. member’s speech, but the Chairman had ruled that it could be done, and he (Mr. Fremantle) would take it that the Chairman knew the rules better than be did. Still, it was a difficult point, and to introduce the closure under such circumstances and in such a way was obviously dangerous. Nothing better calculated to bring about disaster than incidents such as they saw last night could have been conceived. Nothing better calculated to bring contempt upon the House could be imagined than the action of the Minister last night. The Minister bad not been brought up under Parliamentary methods; he had been brought up with ideas of arbitrary methods. He (Mr. Fremantle) did not say that arbitrary methods might not be better than Parliamentary methods. He did not think so. He did say that he believed the country was coming to the conclusion, and the House would come to the conclusion, that they were in grave danger of turning their backs upon the best traditions of Parliamentary Government and adopting arbitrary methods under the leadership of the Minister of Finance. (Hear, hear.)

said he was not here last night, and so he was in a position to view what took place in the House from outside, and from a Parliamentary experience of over 20 years. He was glad to say that this was the first time that he had ever heard or known of such a scene having taken place, and, looking at the cause of it, and the reason for it all, he came to the conclusion that it was because the Ministry made an improper and undue use of the closure in stepping free speech of the minority. (Cheers.) The closure was always a dangerous weapon to place in the hands of the majority, and it was a weapon which was to be used with great discretion. The point upon which the difference arose was whether or not the closure should have been moved immediately after an amendment had been brought forward by one of the Minister’s own supporters. In Parliamentary practice a certain amount of weight was attached, in the consideration of questions of this kind to the fact that the amendment came from the Ministerial side. They knew now from the statement of the hon. member for Clanwilliam that the Ministry were not aware of the amendment, but that did not alter the fact that it came from the Ministerial side, and before any debate could possibly take place the Minister moved the closure. Whether that amendment was or was not of vital importance was surely not a matter which the Minister could have decided upon in a minute or two after it had been moved. (Hear, hear.) They had been listening now for over an hour and a half to a discussion. That discussion began on both sides, and it was carried on for ten minutes by the Prime Minister in a disquisition as to why this amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam was of no importance. The Minister of Finance paid a good deal of attention to it also. He said he was unable to see how anybody on that side could possibly have imagined that this amendment was not in harmony or consonance with anything he had said before. Members on this side had also taken up a considerable portion of the time this afternoon in trying to point out that this amendment was of great importance. In the circumstances it seemed to him (Sir H. H. Juta) that it was a very improper use of a majority to apply the closure and the steam-roller on an occasion of that kind. (Hear, hear.) When a member moved an amendment which a little consideration would show had any bearing upon the subject, it was not a matter which would redound to the credit of Parliament if the minority were not allowed a free opportunity to talk upon that point. There was no discussion upon the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam, and that was why, from his (Sir H. H. Juta’s) point of view and of Parliamentary practice, he said that no minority should have been refused a proper opportunity of discussing that subject. When the Minister’s amendment was moved there was one idea in this House, and that was that this was to be a policy to be carried out for several years to come, and that it was a policy which would take time to set into operation. If any member had had any doubt on that subject, it must have been dispelled when the Minister, at the conclusion of his speech, said he thought this was to be a continuous policy. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir H. H. Juta) did not want to discuss now the relevancy or the bearing of the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam upon the original resolution. What he protested against was the use of the closure upon an occasion of this sort, when an amendment which had a bearing upon the subject had been moved, and a minority, in whatever part of the House it sat, had not had an opportunity of debating it. In the interests of Parliamentary Government, and if they desired to ever bring their work to a conclusion, they must pay heed to the voice of the minority. No closure should have been applied on an amendment of such importance without any discussion. (Hear, hear.) It would remove all ground for grievance, all feeling of soreness, and all outside criticism, if the Minister were to say, “Let us go back, as the minorities think they have been unduly interfered with—let us go back and deal with it.” If the Minister did not do that there would always be this feeling that the minority had been closed down. (Opposition cheers.)

said they had a demonstration in force this afternoon. He supposed the object of the operations having been achieved the force would now retire, but one could not help feeling that there had been a good deal of sham about the fight.

On which side?

I do not think we need say which side. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Burton said that it had been maintained that the Government had been guilty of a serious disregard of the rights of minorities in applying the closure in this particular instance. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had remarked that the closure was a dangerous weapon to place in the hands of a majority, but you could not put the closure in the hands of a minority, that was obvious. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had stated that the Government should not take advantage of its majority. But if the party which was responsible for the business of the country was not to take advantage of its majority in applying the closure, how was the business of the House to be conducted? (Ministerial cheers.) Was the minority to have control?

I added “and force through amendments without discussion.”

said that if they were to safeguard the interests of the minority, which particular minority were they to safeguard? Was it the party opposed to the Government which at present was in a very considerable minority? Then there were the hon. members on the cross-benches, who had better hopes for the future, but at present at all events were in a minority, and then there was another minority on the Government cross-benches. The hon. member for East London was quite fair when he said that so far as; what took place yesterday the application of the closure was perfectly justifiable except in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. But in the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, they should never apply the closure.

It should not be necessary.

Unfortunately that has not been our experience. The hon. member for East London admitted that but for the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam the application of the closure was perfectly justifiable.

Was not unjustifiable.

I am prepared to take the modification. The whole of this demonstration this afternoon comes down to the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth tells us that this was a most important amendment.

The mover said so.

The mover regarded it as important, but not in respect of any merit of the motion itself. (Opposition laughter.) My hon. friends cannot possibly twist words about in this way. The hon. member for Clanwilliam said not a word about the merits of the motion. It was purely a question of the limitations of the operation of the Act for twelve months.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Victoria West is not in his place. He twitted the Prime Minister with the attitude taken up on his criticisms of the Government’s measure, and declared that he had a right to criticise, and that it was his duty to do so. The right hon. gentleman is perfectly right, and we make no complaint whatever, and I am perfectly certain the Prime Minister did not intend to make any complaint of that aspect of the matter. My right hon. friend is well known to be one of our candid friends, and perhaps candour has been rather more accentuated than his friendliness. The point I wish to make in regard to his speech was the rather curious and astonishing statement that the South African Party had marched into the political arena under a banner on which was transcribed “No Land Tax.” I do not know where he got that from. (Hear, hear.)

who had just entered the House, interjected, “Got what?” (Laughter.)

repeated his statement, and added, “Nothing was further from the truth.” He (the Minister) remembered the story of an eminent politician of ours who many years ago sailed into his seat in Parliament under a banner upon which was inscribed “Vote for me and no taxation on wool.” (Laughter.) No secret had ever been made of this question of the taxation of land, but the right hon. gentleman gave it as if he had made a wonderful discovery. But the South African Party in the Cape House not merely proposed the matter, but the right hon. gentleman, with the support of the South African Party, carried a tax on lands.

When?

In.

Oh, that! (Laughter.)

The Bill was carried through.

It was an income tax.

It was also a land tax. Continuing, he said they had been told by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, that this amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam was most important and altered the character of the proposals. In what respect? He asked whether a single reason had been adduced to show that that was the case. Except what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, that the machinery would take a long time to erect nothing else had been adduced. Even if that was all, what important alteration had been made in the proposal?

There had been none whatever. The hon. member for East London disclaimed any desire on the part of his party to enter on a policy of expropriation. He (the Minister) thought they had better not pursue that too far. He went on to refer to the amendment moved by one of the Opposition Whips on the Land Settlement Act, and said that that hon. member then remarked that they should have a compulsory expropriation clause.

Which the Prime Minister supports. (Laughter.)

said the hon. member for Uitenhage asked him if there was anything in his amendment which indicated that the tax would be of an annual character. He (the Minister) declared that undoubtedly that was the case. There was a clear indication. (Laughter.) The amendment said, “Was not beneficially occupied for the twelve months ended on the 30th day of June, 1914.” (Laughter.) If those words had not been used and the resolution had been passed they would have committed Parliament to the continuance of the tax on land. Never was a thinner case made out of objection to the course adopted by the Government on the previous night; because, although a hue and cry had been raised that afternoon, no member had shown on what ground the complaint was made that the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam would have altered the whole of the resolution.

said that the Minister had told them that the speeches from his (the speaker’s) side of the House seemed to be a demonstration of force. He did not know whether he should not apply the same remark to the Minister’s speech. (Laughter.) He thought that dust had been kicked up in order to shield the weakness of the position. They had heard a good deal about the minority and the majority, but the point of hon. members on his side was that the rights of the majority must be exercised with some consideration. They also heard a good deal about the legend on a certain banner, but he did not know under which banner hon. members on the other side were fighting at present. (Laughter) The point they had been trying to make was that the Government made a profound mistake in moving the closure after an amendment had been moved by one of its own supporters, an amendment which they intended to accept. Even if the amendment was of no importance, the closure should not have been moved if the Government intended to accept that amendment. It was not for the Minister to tell them whether the amendment was important or not.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours had said that not a single instance had been adduced to show that that amendment was an amendment of any importance. Reasons had, however, been adduced the previous day by the Minister’s own colleagues to show why that tax should not be an annual affair. Why had the Minister of Finance taken the trouble to tell them that it was a tax which would take years to come into full operation if it was of no consequence? Out of the mouths of those who had proposed that tax the argument was condemned that that amendment was of no importance. If that tax was to be an annual one, he (Mr. Duncan) agreed with the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) that they had better not have that tax at all, and that that amendment had killed the tax, and it was because many hon. members on the other side of the House had felt that that they had voted for the amendment. If the Minister wondered why hon. members were irritated when things of that kind were done he would carry the Minister’s memory back. As the Minister had proposed it, it had been a land tax in the proper sense of the word, but as soon as some opposition came along, he brought forward another proposal—that matter of “beneficial occupation.” The last touch came when it was made an annual tax. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had said that his amendment carried with it a fair indication that the tax was to be an annual one. It was a pity that at the time they had not made that “clear indication” a little more clear. (Laughter.) If it was as the Minister of Railways and Harbours had stated, what had been the reason for the speeches of his colleagues and what had those speeches meant? Had they said that it was a clear indication that the tax was to be an annual one? Proceeding, Mr. Duncan asked the Minister of Finance to recognise the matter in a clearer light, and to recognise that a mistake had been made which had lowered the reputation of Parliament in the country, and that he should do everything he could now do to prevent a similar thing happening in future. One thing he could do now was to own that he had made a mistake the previous night—

And bring Boydell back—

went on to say that if the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) the House would take it as an indication that the Government considered it had been in the wrong. (Ministerial laughter.) A lenient view might also be taken of the conduct of some hon. members the previous night, who would not have acted as they had, if they had acted in cold blood.

said that he had been particularly amused to hear some of the speeches which had been made, especially from the Opposition side of the House. Some of the members of that side of the House seemed that afternoon to have noticed the importance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Clanwilliam. No member other than the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), it was evident, had noticed the important bearing of that amendment on the taxation proposals on the previous night. It was evident to them that the importance of the amendment had been borne upon the Minister of Finance, and that was why he had been in such an indecent hurry to get that amendment through the House, if he might say so. That was his impression. They had seen the Minister of Finance in many characteristics. He was a very many-sided man indeed, and had many aptitudes, but he had now evidently added thought-reading amongst them, and had seen the previous night that he (Mr. Madeley) was out to obstruct. The hon. member then proceeded to refer to the incidents which had led to his being called to order by the Chairman on the previous night, and recalled what he had been saying when he was called to order. The Chairman had called him to order for repeating arguments which he said had been used before in that debate, but when he (Mr. Madeley) had asked the Chairman to instance any hon. member who had used those arguments in that debate, the Chairman had not done so. He (Mr. Madeley) at the time had been referring to fundamentals. The land taxation policy which they (the Labour Party) had been advocating had been tried, and had proved a success. The Government would not agree to the motion to go back into Committee, because they did not want the land tax proposals to be discussed. They were afraid the House might be converted to a real land taxation policy. He hoped the House would consent to recommit those taxation proposals, so that they would have an opportunity of altering them fundamentally.

said as one who would oppose the Government all along the line on those income tax and land tax proposals, and intending to continue to do so to the end, he must say that he would have voted for the proposal of his hon. friend on the Opposition side of the House if he thought it would have had any effect on those proposals; but he was positively certain that they would come back to the House with exactly the same result. We have played loose and fast with the time and dignity of this House long enough, and I am not going to help to bring the House into further contempt.

said he was against the land tax, because they had enough already in the Cape, and it would be further taxed by the Ordinance of the Provincial Council when it came into force; but taking into consideration the whole Union, things were different in the other three Provinces, and so long as people abused their rights on the land, they were to be stimulated to make better use of that land, just so far was he prepared to support the Government. It was clearly indicated in the remarks of the Prime Minister, and with which he (Mr. Oosthuisen) was fully in agreement, that hon. members must not look upon that land tax so much as the means of bringing revenue direct, but indirectly by encouraging people to make better use of the land, but he was not prepared to support the Government, if it was not a policy to be gradually carried out by the Government, but was merely for one year; with that he did not agree. A measure like that would not be carried out in one year, for land which might appear to be not beneficially occupied this year, may be so next year, and therefore as he read the proposals, not as he heard they were understood by the hon. members on the cross-benches, would be free of tax, he thought the purpose of the resolution was to get people to occupy the land and use it beneficially, in which case the tax would lapse. He assumed that if land was beneficially occupied it would be exempt in the following year. He was sorry they had made the tax an annual one, but as they had admitted the principle he was prepared to support the Government in connection with that tax. If it was to be for one year only he could not support it.

said that the hon. member did not seem to have grasped the opinion of the members on the cross-benches. They were quite in favour of the former motion, which they understood was to make an annual land tax, but they quite recognised that if it was carried in the way it was originally intended to be amended that it would be a laughing-stock in the country. The amendment of the previous night made it more sensible. They were trying to explain their position in that regard when the closure was moved and they felt very strongly on the matter, and had the debate been allowed to go on the Minister might have put the matter straight.

then put the question that the word “adopted” proposed to be omitted by the amendment stand part of the motion, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—55.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, Tellers.

Noes—40.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Botha, Christian Lourens

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie. James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst.

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

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

The word proposed to be omitted consequently remained; the amendment to recommit the proposals was therefore negatived.

The motion of the hon. Minister of Finance was then agreed to.

I appoint the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees to bring up the necessary Bill or Bills embodying these resolutions.

Defence Force, amended regulations.

said: Before the House proceeds with the first Order of the day I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. During yesterday’s sitting of the House the Chairman of Committees reported to Mr. Speaker that he had named the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, and the hon. member was thereupon dealt with under Rule 86 of the Standing Orders. The said Rule 86 only provides for procedure in the case of a member who has been named by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman. The procedure of “naming ” a member is of ancient usage in the House of Commons, and consists, according to precedent, in calling on the member by his surname. Examples of this usage have occurred in the House of Commons on February 3, 1881, March 5, 1901, and December 16, 1902, in each of which cases members involved wore called upon by the Speaker by their surnames. It is respectfully submitted that the procedure in the case which occurred on March 26, 1913, when the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons claimed to have named a member whose surname he did not mention was not in accordance with usage, and should not be followed as a precedent. The Chairman of Committees during yesterday’s sitting did not call upon the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, by his surname, and 1 respectfully submit that the subsequent proceedings taken under Rule 86 were therefore out of order, and all reference to them in the Votes and Proceedings should be expunged.

I do not think it is proper in the ordinary course to bring up a matter that has occurred in Committee of Ways and Means, except upon a resolution of that Committee; only upon such a resolution can Mr. Speaker take cognizance of what has taken place in the Committee. As, however, the hon. member has asked my opinion, I may state that I consider the proceedings were in order.

said he just wanted to refer to a slight matter in the Votes and Proceedings. He asked Mr. Speaker if he would arrange for the correction, more for the matter of record than anything else, of the following line: “The hon. member for Jeppe having risen and imputed unfairness on the part of the Chairman—.” He (Mr. Creswell) had said that the Chairman had acted contrary to the Standing Rules and Orders. The Chairman then asked him whether he (Mr. Creswell) insinuated that he (the Chairman) was acting unfairly. He (Mr. Creswell) did not respond to that invitation of the Chairman, but simply repeated: “You have been acting contrary to the Standing Rules and Orders.” He wished that the correction be made.

Although Mr. Speaker is responsible for the Journals of the House which bear his signature, he cannot be held responsible for what occurs in Committee. I am informed that the record complained of has the concurrence of the Chairman of Committees. I will, however, take note of what the hon. member has said and, after consultation with the Chairman, I will, if necessary, bring the matter again to the notice of the House.

moved the third resolution as follows: That there shall be charged, levied, and collected throughout the Union for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such conditions as may be provided in a law passed during the present session of Parliament, the Excise duty hereunder specified, that is to say, in respect of all matches manufactured in the Union, an Excise duty at the rate of 6d. per gross of boxes or packages each containing not more than 100 matches, and, in the case of boxes containing more than 100 matches, an Excise duty at the rate of 6d. per gross of 100 matches

said that this resolution referred to the imposition of an Excise duty on matches. Under the existing tariff a high duty had been imposed on the importation of matches, and under this duty quite a flourishing industry had started. There were three factories— one large one at Durban and two smaller ones at Rosebank and King William’s Town—which fully supplied the requirements of the Union. He did not know the relation of these factories, but there was a whisper that they worked together. He was advised that this Excise duty should be imposed, as the industry could well bear the burden, and the Industries Commission proposed that if this Excise was not imposed, then the Customs duty should be materially lowered. He had followed the first suggestion of the Industries Commission, and had brought forward this proposal. The large factory at Durban had made no representations to him on the subject. The other two factories had made representations that 2s. 6d. was very high, and that it might well be lowered; but from the report of the Industries Commission, and from what he had heard, he had come to the conclusion that he was justified in moving as he did.

asked the Minister if he had made any inquiries as to the wages paid in the factory at Durban? He was informed that Indian labour was employed at Durban, and very much lower wages were paid than was the case at Rosebank or King William’s Town.

said that the figures in the report of the Industries Commission showed that the number of white people employed at the various match factories was as follows: Rosebank, 27; King William’s Town, 28; and Durban, 103.

said that to arrive at the correct number benefited, they would require to know the exact number of people employed.

said he was surprised at the hon. member for Three Rivers raising the question again. There was free trade throughout the Union, and still more so should there be free trade between different parts of the same Province. The coloured labourers employed at Rosebank were very skilful, and those who talked about coloured labour should go and have a look at them. He had no representation from the Rosebank Factory on this question, so he took it that it was not unfair to put an Excise on matches. The duty on matches had enabled the Colonial factories to use a great deal of South African wood which was being wasted, and to spend money on wages] which would otherwise not have been disbursed. At the same time, it was anomalous to encourage people to build up a Colonial industry, and afterwards put an Excise on their products.

said, being a; Free Trader, he regretted that the Minister of Finance had not adopted the wiser course of remitting taxation. Matchmaking, so far as he knew, was entirely a spurious industry, for the factories did not use a single South African product, except water. (Laughter.) The same quantity of matches which cost £6 18s. in South Africa could be bought in Sweden for £2 6s. The effect of the Excise had been to cause the match companies’ shares here to fall 25 per cent. This sort of thing did not encourage people to invest money in South Africa. This constant juggling was to be deprecated.

said a very large number of white girls were employed at the Durban match factory, and he hoped before long the whole of the labour in that factory would be white. (Hear, hear.)

What do you expect to get from this Excise?

£20,000.

said he hoped the Minister would get it, but there was some reasonable doubt because these match people were uncommonly slim. About 30 years ago when Sir Gordon Sprigg’s Government was in great difficulties, he (Mr. Merriman) suggested that it would be a good thing to tax matches. They then put a tax on of 4s. a gross, intending to scoop in a very considerable revenue.

That was too high.

said immediately some astute gentleman started a match factory here. The next stage of the proceedings was that they began to use Colonial wood, and made very bad matches, until now they made a decent article. Of all the funny things the Industries Commission had done it was this. He had an idea that the main object of the Commission was to increase Colonial industries, but the most curious way to do that was by putting an Excise on Colonial matches. He was informed that the Japanese match would now enter into competition and would very likely knock out the Colonial article. The Japanese match would, of course, be made by coloured labour, and he was surprised to learn that the Excise was expected to produce £20,000, out of the pockets of the rich he supposed. This was a curious counterbalance to the £1,000 exemption under the income tax. Government was getting at the poor man indirectly through the matches.

The motion was agreed to.

said he would next move: This Committee recommends:

4. (a) That there shall be charged, levied and collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to any exemptions hereinafter mentioned and to any rebates and conditions which may be provided, or any arrangement made, under the authority of a law passed during the present session of Parliament or of any law relating to the management of the Customs, Customs duties in respect of goods imported into the Union according to the tariff as printed on pages 691 to 697 of the “Votes and Proceedings.”

(b) That such tariff shall be in substitution for the tariff of Customs duties at present in force in respect of goods so imported.

(c) That for the purpose of estimating the amount of Customs duty prescribed by the tariff as printed on pages 697 to 701 of the “Votes and Proceedings, ” whenever levied on goods ad valorem and for the purpose of the declaration and oaths which may be at any time required by law or regulation in relation to the question of, such duty, the value, for duty purposes, of those goods shall be taken to be the true current value for home consumption in the open market for similar goods in the principal markets of the country from which, and at the time at which, the goods were imported, including carriage to the port of shipment and the cost of packing and packages; provided that in no case shall the value for duty, as in this paragraph defined, be less than the cost of the goods to the importer at the port of shipment.

(d) That, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (c), the following provisions shall be in force in respect of the charging, levying, collection and payment of Customs duty:

(i) In the case of goods imported into the Union of a class or kind made or produced in the Union, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in the Union be less than the true current value aforesaid of the same goods when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country from which they were exported to the Union at the time of their exportation there to, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise prescribed, be charged, levied, collected and paid on those goods on importation into the Union a special Customs duty (or dumping duty) equal to the difference between the said selling price of the goods for export and the true current value thereof for home consumption aforesaid.

(ii) When a bounty is granted in the country of origin on any goods, an additional Customs duty equal to the amount of such bounty may be charged, levied, and collected upon the importation of those goods into the Union.

(iii) The goods in respect of which there may be charged, levied, and collected any special (or dumping) Customs duty under sub-paragraph (i) or any additional Customs duty under sub-paragraph (ii) shall be from time to time determined by the Governor-General and notified by him by proclamation in the “Gazette,” together with the date as from which such his determination shall take effect.

The Minister of Finance said anyone dealing with the tariff at once put himself into a hornets’ nest. Since the tariff proposals appeared on May I he had had no rest day or night. He had had interviews all day long with representatives of various vested interests concerned, and, of course, one could not blame them, and he only mentioned the matter to show the exceeding difficulty surrounding the whole question. They also had the abstract theory, and people when they dealt with practical questions such as this rode the high horse either of Free Trade or Protection. We were neither Free Traders nor Protectionists in this country.

What are you?

The tariff shows. Continuing, the Minister said that the Industrial Commission, in going into the circumstances of the various industries, made a number of recommendations based on the abrogation of the railway preference and the substitution of an equivalent Customs duty. This was one of the most difficult matters to deal with, and in one particular case he tested last year it took months and months to find out what would be a fair equivalent in the way of a Customs duty for the abrogation of preferential railway rates. Our tariff as he had explained had from time immemorial teen a revenue tariff.

No.

In the main. Sometimes, of course, some protective clauses have been put in, but, on the whole, our tariff has been a tariff for revenue purposes, and I hold that our tariff will remain that. (“No.”)But that does not prevent us, as I said in the Budget statement, from dealing with those cases where a legitimate industry may be established in this country by reasonable protection. Those cases we must deal with. Hon. members will see in the present proposals that the Government have singled out those cases which seem to them to be clear cases for assistance by way of a small protection, as no undue burden will be thrown upon the rest of the community. I will come to the list of industries that are dealt with in that way. Before I do that, I shall make a few remarks as to sub-sections (c) and (d). Sub-section (c) lays down the basis upon which ad valorem duties will be levied on imported goods.

interposing, suggested that the Minister should take sub-sections (a) and (b) first, and afterwards (c) and (d), separately.

The hon. member means that we should first deal with the individual cases of alterations?

said his suggestion was that the Committee should take (a) and (b) dealing with the tariff, and then (c), which dealt with the charges on goods under the ad valorem duty, and afterwards (d), which was an important one dealing with the dumping clause.

said he was anxious to meet hon. members, because this was a difficult subject to deal with in a large House. He was quite ready to go to the schedule first. Proceeding, he said he would just point out very briefly the particular industries which they had singled out for favour and protection under this new tariff. Hon. members would find in the White Paper which had been laid before them the increases and decreases indicated which it was proposed to make under the tariff. They would find the industries which they were helping in this tariff.

The locally-loaded leather?

That is not a practice which has yet been started in this country. Proceeding, he said that since these proposals were laid before the House representations had been made to him from various quarters that loaded leather was necessary for certain kinds of manufacture. On inquiry, he found that that was not so, that the loading and adulteration of leather increased its weight, but did not make it necessary for purposes of manufacture. (Hear, hear.) A representation, for instance, was made to him that for leggings it was necessary to stiffen the leather and to adulterate it to some extent. The answer to that was very simple. They were now having made very large quantities of leather leggings in Natal for the Defence Force. All that leather came from a factory here in the Peninsula, and it was not adulterated. In other respects, too, where he had made inquiries he found that the argument would not hold water. Loaded and adulterated leather was used by the middleman for retail to the public. So far as his inquiries went, he did not think that the representations which had been made to him on this subject were very well founded. Hon. members would see in the list of reductions on the next page that all dyeing substances for leather had been put on the free list and the 15 per cent. taken off. Further, hon. members would see that leather manufactures imported had been raised from 15 per cent. duty to 25 per cent. duty. These leathers would have to pay that larger duty and to that extent local production would be stimulated.

It is unnecessary.

I do not think that that is so. I know that very strong representations have been made, and I think that in principle there is justification for placing these raw materials of harness and saddle-making on the free list. These various recommendations of the Industrial Commission in regard to leather and leather manufactures will produce, I am sure, a very beneficial change. Proceeding, the Minister said he might point out at the same time that the recommendations of the Commission went further than this and that they recommended an increased import duty on boots. The manufacturers themselves admitted that for all ordinary lines of boots and shoes the protection which they already had was quite ample, and, as a matter of fact, these factories were cramful of work: But, besides that, they had the high-class boots and shoes, very highly finished articles, which were still imported. Hon. members knew that these articles were manufactured under very special conditions and in highly-specialised factories in various parts of the world. He did not think that, if they had the higher protection, they could get these higher-priced articles manufactured here, and the result would be, he thought, that ordinary boots and shoes would become more expensive. (Hear, hear.) So that the Government, while helping the industry, had not adopted the recommendations in regard to boots and shoes. The leather duty had come into force on May 1. The next industry which they were dealing with was tailoring.

Not one bit.

went on to say that he knew of thousands and thousands of pounds which had been lost by these people. They had tried various brands of our local tobacco for their cigarettes, and the result had been a very serious loss. He had the report of experts on that subject, and they bore that out. It was not a question of local prejudice; the question was far more difficult. No doubt in time it would be possible to improve the position and use larger quantities of locally matured and fermented Turkish tobacco, but the present position was not satisfactory. Owing to the coinage current in South Africa, the position was a very difficult one. It was quite impossible, so the manufacturers said, to pass the tax on to the consumer, and they must pay the increase out of their own pockets. If they raised the price of cigarettes from 3d. to 4d. per box, the consumption would be very seriously affected—(“Oh!”)—but these were hard, solid facts. It was all right in this part of the country, but in Johannesburg a copper coinage was not common, and the municipality had buttons for pennies. The next industry was printing. There was a readjustment on the duties on printing and paper according to the recommendations of the Commission—which did not mean fresh revenue. There was also a change in respect to aerated and table waters which would not bring in additional revenue, but which was expected to help the local industry. The next industry was tent making, where the duty on canvas had been reduced. The hon. Minister was again inaudible at this stage and was understood to say that the duty had also been reduced on iron filings used for the manufacture of sulphuric acid. There were a number of other items, which they had dealt with purely for revenue purposes. The duty on bioscopes was going to be raised to 25 per cent., and the duty on bioscope films, which had previously come in free as photographic material, would in future pay 5s. per 100 feet. (“Oh.”) He thought it was quite reasonable. There had been representations, and there was a petition signed by over four thousand people, but it would be found when the matter was gone into that there was no substantial grievance. That, he was understood to say, would bring in about ten thousand pounds.

I can show you how you can get £75,000.

made answer, but it was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery. Proceeding, he dealt with a remark by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), and said that motor spirit was used only to a small extent for industrial purposes; the percentage who used it for that purpose was very small as compared with those who used it as a luxury. Lubricating oil was expected to bring in £10,000. The old duty was 15 per cent; that commodity was in the hands of a big trust and it was quite impossible to find out its real value; the result was that they were bound to have some specific duty; that had been fixed at 3d. per gallon. It looked higher than the old duty, but at that rate it was equivalent to 15 per cent. They were satisfied that the prices that had been given were far too low.

How do you get the amount of £10,000?

We know the quantity which has been imported. Continuing, he said that an alteration had been made with regard to second-hand clothing to bring in additional revenue. The old tariff imposed a tariff of 25 per cent. on men’s second-hand clothing, and the new one would also include women’s second-hand clothing. There would be no difference as there was under the old tariff; the principle of equality was introduced. (Laughter.)

expressed his doubts about the changes helping young industries. Proceeding, he took exception to the item of £40,000 which was to be derived from bespoke clothing; to his mind it was preposterous to expect that; the most that the Minister could hope to get was £20,000—the larger sum was absurd. “Has the Minister got the consent of Rhodesia in connection with this tariff?” asked Mr. Jagger. He added that Rhodesia was a partner in the Customs Union, and it was only natural that they would expect to be consulted. That was very important, for otherwise Rhodesia might decide to withdraw from the Customs Union; that would be unfortunate. Rhodesia was an important market for South African produce; the exports of Colonial produce to there had grown from £134,000 in 1904 to £542,000 in 1913. They should have got the consent of Rhodesia in regard to that matter. He would like to know on what principles his hon. friend had gone in connection with those alterations; so far as he (Mr. Jagger) could see they were based in the first place on increased taxation of luxuries, but they were also based, to his astonishment, on taxation of certain necessaries of life. It was almost a crime in this country, asserted the speaker, to increase the cost of living, and yet the Minister had raised the duty on tea, and it was just that class of tea which was bought by the poorer classes of the population. The well-to-do could afford to buy their tea in 10 or 25 lb. bags, but the poor could only buy their tea in 1 lb. bags.

moved that paragraphs (a) and (b) be disposed of before the remaining paragraphs are considered.

Agreed to.

On Paragraphs (a) and (b),

said that, before the House adjourned, he was remarking that it was rather difficult to make out on what the Minister had based these alterations. The Minister had dealt with jewellery and things of that sort, and also the necessaries of life, and had materially increased the tax on butterine. This had been increased by 1d. per pound. He would like to point out that the present duty worked out at 24 per cent., and margarine, which came under the same heading, at 38 per cent. Surely that was high enough. He was told that both these articles were wholesome, and in this instance the poorest part of the population was taxed. The Minister was not going to stop the importation, and he did not appear to be trying to do so. If the Minister wanted to protect people from being given butterine under the title of butter, he could have arranged that these articles should be labelled by their proper names. The duty on adulterated leather at present was 15 per cent., and the Minister now proposed to increase it by 6d. per lb. What would be the result? Was he going to stop the importation? Manufacturers from oversea could use it in the soles of boots, but they could not do that here. There was no law here, however, to prevent the local manufacturers making adulterated leather. This would handicap the making of cheap boots, and would allow boots partly composed of adulterated leather to come in here. Then the Minister had reduced the duty on crude glycerine. This meant that he was merely bolstering up one factory, and that was De Beers, and making them a present of over £7,000. The hon. member was proceeding to deal with the duty on fruit boxes, when

was understood to say that there was to be a rebate.

How are you going to do it? There is nothing in these resolutions. Continuing, he said that there were not twenty white men employed in making boxes to-day, and yet he taxed the fruit industry on the boxes which it required. Confectionery had been put up to a minimum rate of 25 per cent. Did the Minister know that in some cases it meant an increase of 8d. per lb.? The Minister had decreased the duty on catalogues, and increased the minimum rate from 2d. to 3d. a lb. on all printed material. The hon. member went on to refer to the printing of labels and the industries that used them, and asked why the Minister had not assisted these industries? He must say that he was bitterly disappointed with the proposals of the Minister of Finance. In the course of his speech the Minister enunciated two principles. In the one case, he said they wanted to promote private industries in this country; and, in the second instance, he said that it would be almost a crime to increase the cost of living. The hon. member pointed out that the average duty on the importation of food products was 20 per cent., and, under these circumstances, one would have thought that the Minister, having admitted that it was necessary to bring down the cost of living, would have proceeded to have reduced the cost of living, and done his best to pursue the sound policy of promoting private industries. What had he done? Take the wool industry or the ostrich feather industry. They were handicapped by having to pay a duty on flour and foodstuffs, sugar 311/2 per cent., soap 26 per cent., cement for dipping tanks 19 per cent., saddlery and harness 21 per cent., and matches 132 per cent. Neither the ostrich farmer nor the wool merchant would get one cent extra for their products because of the heavy duties that they paid. All these taxes came out of the products of the ostrich feather and wool farmers. The hon. member then went on to refer to the fruit industry, which he said, was considerably handicapped by the tax on boxes. The making of these boxes, he thought, would bring about a flourishing industry.

He would vote with both hands for a revenue tariff, for he knew we could not have absolute free trade in this country, because we had to get a large part of the revenue out of the Customs. About two-thirds of the breadstuffs South Africa consumed were imported.

One-third imported.

That will strengthen my argument. Continuing, Mr. Jagger said that last year the duty on flour brought in £184,000, and on wheat £142,000, making a total of £326,000 duty on breadstuffs. Suppose we produced only one-third of our breadstuffs in the country, the price was just the same for the colonial-grown as for the imported article, and the total tax on breadstuffs would be £436,000, of which £327,000 went to the Treasury and £109,000 to other people. In addition there were the differential railway rates. Take another industry—sugar. The duty on ordinary sugar was £3 10s. a ton, the average being 311/2 per cent on the value. Last year £73,000 was collected in duty on sugar. One could take the locally-grown sugar as totalling 90,000 tons and the imported at 30,000 tons, giving a total consumption of 120,000 tons. The duty that would have been paid on the locally-grown sugar would be £315,000, so that altogether the public were paying on sugar £388,000, of which £73,000 only went to the Treasury and £315,000 went into the pockets of the sugar growers in Natal. Was it extraordinary that these people were such firm supporters of the Government? Then the differential railway rates on sugar would amount to £225,000, so that altogether the sugar industry received assistance from the State to the tune of £613,000. Take matches, the duty on which was 1321/2per cent., and the Customs duties received from which last year amounted to £4,638. The South African factories turned out 787,000 gross, and calculating on the same basis as the Customs duty, this represented a tax of £78,000, so that the total tax on matches was £83,000. Owing to the Excise on matches the Treasury would get about £24,000 from matches. Still that left over £60,000, which went into the pockets of the manufacturers, who represented a monopoly—(hear, hear)—and carried on the major portion of their operations with Asiatic labour. Naturally match-making would be worked much more in the future with Asiatic labour, because of the desire of the manufacturers to save the amount of the Excise by employing the cheapest labour.

Last year the tax on candles amounted to between £17,000 and £18,000, of which the Treasury received only £1,289, the remainder going into the pockets of the candle manufacturers. The same with soap, an industry which cost the country £10,000 a year. People paid heavy taxes, but it did not all go into the Treasury. The tax on beer was 54 per cent., on wines from 50 per cent. to 98 per cent., jams 51 per cent., biscuits 52 per cent., currants 64 per cent., vinegar 69 per cent., printing 25 per cent., and dynamite 34 per cent. Could the Minister say that this was a revenue tariff? These duties were put on for protective purposes. These duties cost the country some millions of money; some people estimated as much as six millions, but he believed that was an exaggeration. These protected industries were carried on the backs of the prime industries of the country, which had to sell their products overseas. What good would be these heavy protective duties to the hon. members for Cradock or Colesberg or to those engaged in the wool or ostrich industry? They also told very heavily on the gold mines and diamond mines, for in addition to the 10 per cent. tax on profits which the mining companies had to pay their raw material was increased in price, that was their labour would cost more because of the increased cost of living. The farmers did not get a single sixpence extra for their products in the overseas market because of these duties. The farmers in some other countries had found out the fallacy of protection. The farmers of Western Canada had struck against the heavy protection enjoyed by the manufacturers of Eastern Canada. (Hear, hear.) In South Africa he never knew an industry come to maturity. The leather industry was here when he came to Cape Town, and it was just as weak as ever it was, and it still required suckling. In the Manufacturers’ Association we were creating an instrument which in the future would do its best to rob the people of this country in the same way as the Manufacturers’ Association of Canada was doing and endeavouring to prosper at the expense of the primary interests of the country. (Hear, hear.)

The burden would have to be borne by the primary industries. It was the farmers who would have the shackles fastened upon them; they were the people who would have to pay. Take the case of wool, for instance. If they made every piece of woollen material required in this country, they could not use all the wool grown here, and so long as they had to send wool oversea, no matter how many factories there were here, the farmers would not get 6d. more for it The fact of the matter was that the price of these primary products was not determined by the local markets. What, for instance, was the local market worth to the wheat growers of Canada? Nothing at all. They sent their wheat oversea, and the price was fixed oversea. Just as soon as a thing had to be marketed oversea, the local market, so far as the price was concerned, had absolutely nothing to do with it. The local market, about which so much fuss was made, was only good to the small farmer, the man who produced vegetables, eggs, milk, and the like, and who lived in the neighbourhood of towns. The farmer who worked on a big scale had invariably, as was found in the case of fruit and the like, to find his market oversea. The hon. member quoted from the report of the Industries Commission in regard to the price obtained by producers of soya beans from Lever Bros, at Durban, in order to show that the fact of there being a local market did not lead to any better price being obtained locally by the farmer than could be obtained oversea. Proceeding, the hon. member said let them take the case of hides. Did his hon. friend think for one moment that, because there were a certain number of tanneries in this country, the farmers were going to get more for their hides? It did not make any difference how many factories they had here so long as they had to send their surplus produce oversea.

What about wood used in the match factories?

said that the country was taxed to the tune of about £80,000 a year for the support of an industry which consumed a few tons of wood each year, the bulk of their raw material being imported.

He thought he had shown conclusively that the big bulk of the farmers had absolutely nothing to gain by protection in any shape or form, but, on the contrary, that they had a lot to lose by it. The more the cost of living here was reduced the better opportunity the farmer was going to have of competing in the oversea market. The mining industry was on exactly the same footing Gold, diamonds, copper and tin, all these had to be sold in the oversea market. Then it was said that they should keep the money in the country. That was an argument that seemed to be very popular in some quarters, as if one could eat money. What was the good of a sovereign if they could not buy something with it? It was no good.

Isn’t it?

Does my hon. friend make his dinner on a sovereign??

It buys a dinner. (Hear, hear.)

My hon. friend is perfectly well aware that money is absolutely no good, except for what it can buy. (Hear, hear.) You talk about keeping money in the country. As a matter of fact, if hon. members go into the figures they will see that on the balance this country is not sending away money; we import money into this country. Our importations of goods are strictly limited by what the produce of the country is, by what we can pay for. The more the exports of this country go ahead the more the imports will go ahead, and you cannot possibly stop them. You may change the tariff on imports, but so long as you send your wool oversea and your ostrich feathers oversea you will have to take something in return, and that return will come in the shape of goods. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he supported cheap rates for the export trade. Not only was it good for the country, but it increased the import trade in proportion. He thought he had shown conclusively that this fallacy of keeping money in the country was now well exposed, so far as this House was concerned. What was the result of our tariff? He thought we had not got a better example of the result of these heavy duties than we had in the match factory. What had taken place there on a small scale was what had taken place on a large scale in the States of America. When industries were protected like this they were formed into trusts. He had no doubt that when the sugar industry of this country produced more than was required by the country and sent its surplus oversea a trust would be formed. The result of this tariff was, as had been found in the United States of America, to make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. The hon. member proceeded to quote from a statement made by President Wilson, to the effect that there had been no more demoralising influence in their time than tariff legislation, Had it meant prosperity to the U.S.A.? Yes, if it meant vast wealth, no matter how distributed. They saw in the U.S.A. a vast aggregation of factories under one small group, as he (Mr. Jagger) had seen himself.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that the curious thing about that business was that they handicapped the white man by increasing the cost of living. That was what hon. members should understand thoroughly, because it was a serious matter in that country. It cost the white man more to live than the coloured man or the native, and the higher the cost of living was the more the white man was driven out. They had not a better example than what had been said by the Minister of Railways and Harbours himself, that he had to pay £90,000 extra for the employment of white men on the railways. What a State could do, local manufacturers could not always afford to do. Competition was so fierce and the market so limited that they turned to the cheapest possible labour. In the country they turned to coloured labour or Asiatic labour, where in other countries they turned to female labour because of its cheapness. The coloured man was just as keen and eager to live in the towns as the white man, and the result was that when they started those factories in the towns coloured labour drifted in from the country and found employment in the towns. The result was that the farmer had less coloured labour, and that he was starved for labour. (Hear, hear.) All this was done at the cost of the white population in the country which they wanted to see increased. The Minister of Finance knew that the policy he (Mr. Jagger) was advocating was the best policy, and had admitted so in his speech the other day. Why not have put a revenue tariff on a revenue basis and reduced the cost of living in South Africa? He could have reduced the duty on bread-stuffs, soap, boots and shoes, and the like, and instead of that the Minister had simply been tinkering with the tariff. (Hear, hear.) He had taxed certain luxuries and he had taxed certain necessaries of life. Instead of taking a broad view and a big view, and introducing a tariff on a scientific basis, he had not taken the opportunity. Why had the Minister missed such a grand opportunity for introducing such a tariff, because before that they had never had such an opportunity, and it had always been a case of take it or leave it? (Hear, hear.)

said that if he might venture to answer the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), why the tariff had not been put on a scientific basis, his reply was that the Minister of Finance had not had time to do so, and the tariff had been drawn up with a certain amount of hurry to give his hon. friend the Minister the largest amount of money in the easiest way. The hon. member congratulated the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, on the interesting nature of his speech, the trouble he had taken to prepare it, and the grasp he had shown of his subject. (Cheers.) What he wanted to propose was that they take the suggested increases of the Minister seriatim.

was understood to reply that he quite agreed with the suggestion made by the hon. member, but there were a large number of hon. members who desired to speak.

said that he found himself greatly pleased by the address given by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, on protection, but he must have been preaching to the converted when he was speaking to the Minister of Finance. The only misfortune was that the Minister had to get money, and had to get it by means of the Customs tariff. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) was quite wrong when he fulminated against that country being a protective country, because, as a matter of fact, their tariff was a comparatively moderate protective tariff. In New Zealand the Customs revenue worked out at 16 per cent, of the total, the imports in Australia rather higher, and in Canada about 16 per cent. The revenue in Canada was 33 millions, and they got 22 millions through the Customs. (Hear, hear.) If they went to all the colonies they would find that, in comparison, their revenue from the Customs in South Africa was very moderate indeed. He took that opportunity of tendering his thanks to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, for having expressed so clearly the real meaning of preference. The money did not go into the pockets of the Englishmen, it went into the pockets of the selfish manufacturers and the sharp importer. Those were the people who profited. (Laughter.) The Englishmen and the Dutchmen in this country had to put their hands into their pockets and pay.

With regard to that tobacco business, proceeded Mr. Merriman, he was glad the hon. Minister was going to tax it. But the Minister was quite wrong in his history. The true history of tobacco was that it had fallen into the hands of a trust; that trust was trying to check the industry here, and had so far succeeded that the farmers in the Stellenbosch district, who had so far done well, were being crushed by the trust. They were producing good stuff there, and in time would have produced stuff which they could have exported; but no. The trust decided they would import cheap cigarettes from England; they would drench this country with them, not by means of honest competition, but by giving prizes. He (Mr. Merriman) should think that was breaking the law, and he wished the Minister of Justice would look into the lottery law and see if those people could give prizes with their inferior wares. Could they not be brought into the law; and could not the Minister of Finance put a tax on those lotteries? They had a gambling law here, and they put down the unfortunate bookie. He would like to know how much deeper-dyed were the sins of the bookie than those people who were offering prizes in order to sell their tobacco? It would be a good thing for the revenue if the Minister of Finance could put that tax on. Proceeding, he said those alterations did not amount to a revision of a tariff. That would be required to be debated in a different atmosphere. It was a few items scratched together out of a volume which the Minister did not have much reverence for in his heart of hearts—the report of the Tariffs Commission. He (Mr. Merriman) thought that was dead and buried. But the Minister had brought it out of its tomb, and scratched out a few items. That was not the way to frame an amended Customs tariff. They had one at present which had served its turn, but there were so many advisers outside, each with a little axe to grind. The only way to frame a tariff, in his opinion, would be to get some sort of Select Committee. (Hear, hear.) Of course, there were difficulties about that too. They had to be careful about what they did with Select Committees, and they had had some instances already in the old Cane House. Continuing, he said that what surprised him about the tariff—if they could call it one—was that those alterations showed the strange way in which the Minister, who was bursting with love for the poor man, had rather hit the poor man. He had singled him out. He had got at his matches, his tobacco—he (Mr. Merriman) agreed with the Minister there—and he had got at his pipe. Then he put something on his butter, or, rather, on his substitute for butter, which must be nasty stuff. (Laughter.) He taxed his bread and cheese. In fact the poor man was doing very badly under that tariff.

He would ask the Minister to consider certain questions in regard to that. One was the question of eggs. (Laughter.) Would not the hon. member for Cape Town, with all his zeal for importing, agree that if we could keep the money sent out for eggs in this country, it would be better for us? We should be creating a new product, and then the man who sells a few dozen eggs could buy a pair of breeches. The money would go out of the country in that direction. (Laughter.) He had never seen a more haphazard way of taxing egg than by the lb. (Laughter.) What value of eggs did his hon. friend think were imported from China last year? He was afraid the hon. member had not studied the statistical register. Only £150 worth of eggs were imported from China, against £77,000 worth from other countries. It was not necessary, therefore, that they should resort to taxing eggs 1d. per lb., if they wished to crush the liquid egg business in this country. They should tax eggs on a scientific basis. How many eggs came to a pound? (Laughter.) If they got first-class eggs, it worked out at eight, but his advisers in that matter informed him that nine was the average. (Laughter.) If they taxed Siberian eggs by the method proposed, it was going to put a premium upon Siberian eggs, and the result would be that they would have a number of undersized eggs. For eggs were not sold by the lb. You do not buy eggs by the pound, protested Mr. Merriman, you buy an egg. (Laughter.) Consequently there would be an excellent supply of little inferior eggs from Siberia. They would be encouraging the production of those eggs. The proper way was to tax eggs at so much a dozen. That was the way adopted in other countries. In the Commonwealth, eggs were taxed at 6d. per dozen. If they were to tax them here at 2d. per dozen they would get about £10,000 at least. That was not a bad thing. He suggested to his hon. friend that he should shift the per lb. on to the dozen basis, and then he could deal separately with the China eggs on a much higher scale than 1d. per lb. Half-a-crown would be more suitable. (Laughter.) There was another thing. In this zeal of the hon. Minister to protect the printing industry in this country, he should think that any true politician would agree to protect the printing industry. Their reputations were kept alive by the printing industries.

Once on a time a certain gentleman who was the strongest free trader came at the head of a deputation to the Treasurer of the day and asked him to protect the printers— a, primary industry. He was afraid that that spirit was not dead yet, because if there was one statement absolutely true with regard to this tariff it was, “Tell me what you want to protect and I will tell you what you are.” (Laughter.) People were free traders in corn and in everything else, but there was always “one little matter” which they thought ought to be protected —(laughter)—and then the advocate opened up to show how admirable a thing it was. Don’t let his hon. friend be captured by these gentlemen—laughter)—he was only playing with them. There was the matter of catalogues. Catalogues were taxed book catalogues that were sent to the libraries at 15 per cent. He thought that was a great shame. He did not see why the merchant should get his catalogue free while the library catalogue was taxed.

We are writing our own books in the country now. (Laughter.)

You certainly won’t get them printed here unless you are a millionaire. I don’t know any country where printing is so expensive. It rather cripples budding authors in their performances. (Laughter.) Continuing, the right hon. gentleman said there was another subject which he would like to deal with, and that was the fruit industry. Volumes were written about the fruit industry in the newspapers, and the only thing the Government had done was to put on a tax of 15 per cent. on the boxes. Why? Why? (Laughter.) They could not produce wood here; the wood was brought here. Yet they charged 15 per cent. on the boxes. He did not think that was right, and if they wanted to do a small thing for the industry, why tax the boxes?

We are rebating.

I am glad to hear that, but I think you are only rebating when we export our fruit. We have to send our fruit to Natal and Johannesburg and other places. Perhaps you would prefer that we sent our fruit in paraffin cases? (Laughter.) You ought to encourage people to use these boxes.

Now we know what you are. (Laughter.)

This is your little axe. (Renewed laughter.)

It is not my axe at all. It is the axe of an industry that you say you are anxious to protect. The only way you protect the industry is by taxing the boxes. Continuing, the right hon. gentleman dealt with the dumping clause, and said that when anyone burning with anxiety to come here and make a living and foreign countries put things cheaply here, they said they must be charged at the highest rate. They would be getting into serious difficulties over this dumping clause. It was altogether a wrong principle. If a man chose to make them a present by selling things cheaper than to his own people, he was a fool for doing so. Dealing with the carriage on mealies, he said that at one time it was cheaper to get one’s mealies here by getting them down at the export rate, sending them to Southampton and bringing them back and selling them here. It the Minister went in for protection he would be cheered by the very people who were going to suffer. They ought to have a revenue tariff, and the only way was to tax articles of general consumption to a moderate amount, and then they got the money required. Let them take coffee. It was now brought in here cheaper than under any tariff in the British Empire. It was 3/4d., and if they charged 1/4d. more they would get £24,000. It was not likely that the tax would be felt, because the price of coffee had rather gone down. It was an article of general consumption all round the country. There was somebody talking about taxing the native. They were already charging him 25 per cent. for his blankets, and he would, not suffer if they put a 1/4d. on his coffee. To go in for all these little jim-jams, things they did not understand, and he was sure his hon. friend the Minister did not understand—(laughter)—was not the right policy. Let them take one or two articles, and if they charged a small amount on these they would get their money. They had a charge of 25 per cent, upon clothing. It didn’t affect him because-reach-me-downs were good enough for him. (Laughter.) He was now speaking for those classical gentlemen round him. (Laughter.) He did not know why they were singling out bespoke clothing, the imported variety of which was much better than they could get in this country. “Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy.” Let the Minister think of Polonius, and don’t let him prevent the poor fellows being decently dressed. (Laughter.)

A more haphazard unscientific slipshod way of dealing with the tariff he had never seen. (Laughter.) The Minister laughed. The Minister was strongly against preference, but he was giving a present to our Australian friends of ever so much money, and they rewarded us by putting 5 per cent. on our dynamite, and we deserved it —we deserved to be kicked. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Merriman) did not see why we should give preference at all, because it did no good at all He made up his mind that if ever it fell to his lot to have anything to do with the revision of the tariff he would give up Preference because it was thoroughly dishonest. Somebody had said something about loyalty, as if loyalty had anything to do with paying more for your goods than you ought to pay. The thing was absurd, and he did hope that the Minister with a strong powerful majority would have swept this absurdity away.

said he wished to make a few remarks from the point of view of the producer and the man on the land. First, however, he wished to express his gratitude to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central It was not often that farmers could be grateful to the hon. member, but to-day they could be. The hon. member had stated that new industries would fall into the hands of the coloured people, and had regretted it.

For the simple reason that it would take them away from work on the farms.

The coloured labourer has a right to work wherever he chooses. Continuing, Mr. Heatlie said the largest section of the people of the country were Protectionists. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, referred to loaded leather being taxed at 6d. per lb., and went on to regret that this leather would be manufactured here, is it not better to use South African loaded leather in our manufactories than that manufactured abroad. Then how could we have closer settlement without a local market? It was not the small farmer who could send his produce oversea, and if we desired to have closer settlement we must try to find a market for the products of these settlements and that could only be done by encouraging industries. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had complained about the Protection given to sugar, but had never said a word about protecting our sugar against the bounty-fed sugar from other parts of the world. Give a fair Protection to such things as could fairly be manufactured here and then we should not require to import them. He hoped the Minister would try to maintain the position of affairs under which we had so far succeeded in establishing a fair market for our spirits in Rhodesia, as there was great danger of our losing that market owing to the proposal recently made to increase the duty on S.A. spirits by 6s. per gallon.

He would just like to refer to tobacco. He saw that a duty was to be placed on the raw material of 6d. per lb. and also more duty on cigarettes, but they were not putting the same duty on cigars and other manufactured tobacco. He thought that an additional duty should be placed not only on cigarettes and unmanufactured tobacco, but on all classes of manufactured tobacco. He, in common with many others, regretted to find that no attempt was being made to make up the Protection on spirits that was surrendered last year. We had had in the Cape Province a duty of 25s. a gallon, which was the import duty plus Excise duty, but at present we only had a duty of 21s. throughout the Union. He took it that spirits were a luxury and that if a few more shillings were added to the duty it would be of immense benefit to the South African manufacturers and would do nobody any harm. The import of foreign spirits into the Union was 495,000 gallons in 1913, as compared with 483,000 gallons in 1912, and he thought this increase was largely attributable to the decreased duty paid on imported spirits. He hoped the Minister would see his way during the present session to give a few more shillings protection, the same as they had before the tariff was interfered with last year.

said that he had read the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, and, he thought, taken as a whole, that it was a Free Trade speech, but the tariff which had been produced was, he must confess, more of a Protective tariff than a Free Trade tariff. (Hear, hear.) The Minister was followed by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, by whom he was reprimanded for the Free Trade speech which he then delivered. The right hon. gentleman then, to his (Mr. Krige’s) amazement —because the right hon. gentleman at heart is a Free Trader—preached those doctrines which were very dear to him (Mr. Krige), the doctrines of Protection. To-night, the right hon. gentleman had got up again and made a Free Trade speech and advocated a Free Trade tariff, such were the ways of politicians.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, at any rate, was a consistent Free Trader. He started off his speech by dilating on the cost of living in this country. He (Mr. Krige) thought it would have been most interesting to get from him a detailed calculation, showing in what degree the importers in this country were responsible for the excessive cost of living. It would be interesting to know the actual cost of the article landed at the ports, the amount at which it would be retailed by the importer at the coast, and the profit taken by the man to whom he sold it in the country. (Hear, hear.) He wished to tell the hon. gentleman that, as representing the farming community, they would not accede to his kind invitation to walk into his Free Trade parlour. The hon. gentleman had stated that the people of this country were paying, as the price of Protection, a matter of a million sterling. That was a most serious statement for a responsible politician like the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) to make, and no facts had been cited in proof of it. They had (been told that this was a revenue tariff, so that any protection which had been afforded to any articles by this tariff since 1906 must have come in by chance. Did the hon. gentleman mean to say that, before the tariff in 1906, flour, wheat, butter, confectionery, bacon, jam, candles, soap, furniture, carts, wagons, saddlery and harness, boots and shoes, and explosives were not all dearer than they were to-day? Matches were also 100 per cent. cheaper to-day than before 1906.

Why are they cheaper?

Because you have established industries in this country competing with the imported article. (Hear, hear.)

Nonsense.

continuing, said that the locally manufactured article decreased in price under protection, and the consumer got the benefit. That had been found to be the case in that country. Take for instance the manufacture of the lower class of boots and shoes, which had greatly decreased in price since 1906 on account of the local competition. Therefore he was sorry that the Minister of Finance had not seen fit to give the same facilities in his tariff for the highest class of boots as he had for other classes of boots. He believed that if the same facility were given to the higher classes of boots the people of the country would rise to the occasion, and before long they would get an article satisfactory in every respect. The articles he had quoted proved that they had followed a wise policy, and that they were not now entirely dependent on the imported article in the Union. On one point he was disappointed with the Minister, and that was that he had laid down the principle that that Government was not to deviate from a revenue tariff. He must tell his hon. friend that he did not agree with him, and he hoped that that would not be the settled policy of the Government, because he was afraid that many of their supporters felt vitally on that question. It was an established economic fact that a revenue tariff was the worst thing one could apply in regard to the consumer, because the consumer had to pay the cost of the article, plus the tariff, plus the profit of the importer. As regarded the argument that no industries should be established because it would encourage coloured labour, the hon. member said that the coloured people were a great factor in their economic life, and why should they not be used for building up that country? It was apparently sound to use coloured labour for mines and agriculture, but it became an economic crime should the same labour be employed in manufactures. The importers and free traders preferred to sell and use the articles of other countries, manufactured often by sweated labour instead of using the articles of South Africa manufactured by the labour of South Africa. Ere long he prophesied that that question of Customs tariff would have to be tackled again. What he was aiming at was that the policy of that country should be a policy of development, both agriculturally and industrially, and that could only be done by a properly thought out protective tariff, which he hoped would still come about during the tenure of his hon. friend the Minister. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to draw the Minister’s attention to the tax on coffee, and he suggested that the tax should be so altered as to encourage people in the country to mix their own coffee, as the imported coffee contained too much chicory. The best way to do that would be to reduce the tax on raw and roasted coffee, and increase it in the same measure on chicory. Then he wished to suggest the reduction of the bioscope film tax from 5s. per hundred feet to 1s. per hundred feet. He had been informed by the owner of a bioscope that the tax would amount to £35 per week. (Personal investigations had shown him that every bioscope gave about 7,000 feet of film every night. The film was changed twice a week, which meant that 14,000 feet of film per week was used, so that the tax was an extremely heavy one. He held that the bioscope was a good and legitimate source of entertainment for youth as well as for the elder part of the population. He therefore moved that the tax on bioscope films be reduced from 5s. to 1s. per hundred feet.

moved that the Chairman report the Resolution relating to Taxation Proposal on Excise Duty, and further to report progress on Taxation Proposal on Customs Duties, and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

Progress was then reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow (Friday).