presented a petition front Zoutpansberg in opposition to the grant of the franchise to women.

The Clerk read the petition, which was in the Dutch language.

asked if the Clerk would kindly read an English translation of the petition.

said that the petition had been drawn in the Dutch language only, and it had not yet been possible to translate it.

from inhabitants of Ladysmith, Natal, in opposition to the proposed Customs duty on bioscope films.

OF COMMITTEES brought up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on certain resolution on taxation proposals on Excise duty.

moved that the resolution be now considered.

objected.

then moved that the resolution be considered on Monday.

This was agreed to.

laid on the Table a detailed estimate of the amount to be received during the year ending March 31, 1915, in respect of the repayment of loans and advances and sale of Crown lands.

said he would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Committee on the taxation proposals had yet prepared its Bill on the income tax? He added that they would like an opportunity of examining the Bill before it came before the House.

The Committee are still preparing the Bill. Of course, there is no objection to bringing up all the proposals in one Bill. I don’t know what course is to be adopted.

moved, as an unopposed motion, seconded by Mr. Cronje: That the petition from Catharina Simmons and six other Native, women of the Orange Free State regarding the operation of the Pass Law, which was laid on the Table on. May 12, 1914, be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration and report.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that when progress was reported on Thursday night the following paragraphs of Resolution No. 4 were under consideration: (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.

To this, Mr. G. J. W. du Toit (Middelburg) had moved, as an amendment: Under Class I., “Special Rates,” item No. 22, “Films for bioscopes,” etc., to reduce the amount of duty by four shillings.

said he wanted to make a personal explanation. He had inadvertently made a mistake last night when dealing with the question of the incidents of Cape Tariff. He had been contrasting it with that of New Zealand and the Commonwealth, and then went on to say that the tariff of Canada was 60 per cent. It should have been 16 per cent. The argument, however, was just the same. He made that explanation as he did not want the House to think that he had intended to mislead it.

said he was opposed to all the proposals to increase taxation because in his opinion they were not necessary. That had been his view ever since the Minister of Finance brought in his proposals, but as there was very little likelihood of convincing the Minister of that, the next thing to do was to free the country as much as possible from the very high cost of living. They would all agree with him that the main object of Parliament, of both sides of that House, was to secure the best possible measure of prosperity for the country and to secure an increased amount of production in those commodities that were so necessary for their daily lives and which were now being imported in large quantities from other countries. Thus far there was no difference between either parties in the House. The next question was the best way of bringing about that prosperity. They would further agree that the present was the time when care should be taken to avoid the making of mistakes, because it was almost impossible for any nation after making a mistake, in the matter of a tariff, to retrace its steps. Mr. Quinn then went on to state that it was well-known that members of the professions in South Africa were capable of holding their own as against those of other countries. But it was also a fact that they could not get the youth of this country to put the same soul and thoroughness into his work as the European-born boy. (Cries of dissent.) Well, his experience of 20 years had taught him that if they put two South African boys, whether English or Dutch, by the side of two European-born boys, that the former were no match for the latter.

That is your opinion.

Yes, I am giving my opinion. He maintained that the Afrikander boy could not hold his own in the workshops of South Africa with the European-born boy. There were several reasons to account for this. One was a lack of independence, and he deprecated a policy that was going to make the people of this country more and more dependent upon the Government.

It is well known in the Transvaal that if a man became poor he always went to the Government for relief, and in some form or other nearly always got it. But what they wanted to impress upon the present generation was that they should rely upon themselves and cultivate a spirit of independence. Mr. Quinn then went on to quote from a speech made by Lord Rosebery when Chancellor of the Glasgow University, in which he said: “As things are we in Scotland do not take much or even ask much from the State, but the State invites us every day to lean upon it. I seem to hear the wheedling and alluring whisper, ‘sound you may be; we bid you be a cripple.’ Do you see? Be blind. Do you hear? Be deaf. Do you walk? Be not so venturesome. There is a crutch for one arm. When you get accustomed to it you will soon want another. The sooner the better! The strongest man if encouraged may soon accustom himself to the methods of an invalid; he may train himself to totter or to be fed with a spoon. ” Continuing, Mr. Quinn said that very much the same state of affairs, only perhaps worse, existed in this country. They were teaching the people to hang on to the Government. If a match factory was started they went to the Government and got 2s. per gross protection, and things were tending more and more in that direction. He was surprised that the Minister of Finance should have based his arguments upon a discredited report like that of the Trades and Industries Commission. To his (Mr. Quinn’s) mind the result of that Commission was a miser able failure, and the Minister could not have hung his case upon anything worse.

He went on to refer to the recommendations of the Commission, and said that in the case of each of the articles recommended for protection there was a strong protective duty. This tariff was neither a protective tariff nor a revenue tariff. In fact it was no credit to the Minister. What did the Minister mean by it? He (Mr. Quinn) did not think the Minister knew. The duties on some of the things would unquestionably bear upon the poorest class of the population. How could the Minister say one day that he was not going to increase the cost of living, and then go and do it the next? It was one of those mental feats of which only the Minister was capable. This tariff would increase the cost of living. He had increased the duty on butter substitutes, and butter substitutes, if the Minister did not know, were used by a large number of people who could not afford to buy butter. Instead of butter being 9d. or 10d. per lb. it was much nearer 2s., and some of these substitutes were of exceptional value. Now the duty had been raised 50 per cent. He (Mr. Quinn) would rather pay more on his petrol than see the duties remain on some of these articles that were used so extensively by the poorer portion of the population. What was the meaning of this tax of 1d. on packets of tea? Here again the Minister was getting at the people who were least able to bear increased burdens. It was not a revenue tariff, and if it was protective, who was it going to protect? The hon. member then went on to refer to matches, and said that here was an industry which could give up £25,000 cheerfully and not raise the price of matches. It meant that there was a monopoly, and that the people had been paying this money out of their own pockets into that of the monopolists.

There were about 200 white people engaged in the match-making industry in this country, and it would be better to pension off all these people and let people buy their matches as cheaply as they could. They were just beginning, and he supposed they would find themselves one day in the position of America, where, after heavy protective duties were put on, combines were formed and the people paid every time. To let a thing of this sort go on was a public disgrace. If they could take £20,000 from this company and the price of matches was not raised, it meant that they were getting £80,000 out of it. Dealing with the duty on clothing, he said that if a man wanted to buy his clothes somewhere else let him pay for them. If this was meant as protection to the tailors, where did the Minister’s £40,000 come from? Either the tax was imposed as a protection for tailors and to make people buy their clothes here, or it was intended for revenue purposes. If for revenue purposes he could understand it, but if it was for protective purposes it was nonsense. Tailors would tell them that it was not enough. He thought that here again the Minister was up against a stone wall, and he might as well drop the proposal. Take it for granted it was for revenue purposes, and that meant that the Minister expected £400,000 worth of clothing to come through the post in one year. He was not going to protect tailors and get £40,000 in duties at the same time. Dealing with confectionery, he said that the Minister’s policy was neither one thing nor the other, because he taxed the readymade article and the raw material. Confectioners up-country had to pay a duty on sugar of 6s per 100 lbs. What was the good of talking about protection for industries when the Minister taxed material that was absolutely necessary. Dealing with the manufacture of biscuits, he said 6s. per 100 lbs. had to be paid on sugar, 33 per cent, on flour, 21/2d. a lb. on butter, and duty had to be paid on raisins, currants, in fact everything that was used. If they were going to encourage industries, well, let the raw material come in free.

Every farmer who wanted to send his fruit to Europe was taxed to keep the box manufacturers going. There was not one of those industries that was not heavily taxed. They should have some intelligent policy. He could take the Minister to a biscuit factory for which £16,000 or £17,000 had been spent in machinery, yet all the raw material was taxed. The only thing that was allowed to go into the Transvaal free was lifeboats. With regard to railway rates, he mentioned that he had once bought some sugar. An American firm quoted 14s. 14d., c.i.f., Durban. Natal sugar, similar in quality, was 17s. If it had not been for the rates, there would have been a difference of £2 13s. 4d. per ton. Nothing could be further from the truth than that they were running the railways on business lines. If they abolished the Railway Board and the Minister of Railways, and gave their general manager a free hand they could run the railways at 20 per cent, cheaper Why should a ton of sugar brought in from America pay twice as much as Natal sugar? With railways run on honest and straightforward business lines, they would be able to do something. Let them give up the idea of talking about industries until every man had an equal chance, otherwise it would be impossible to go on He did not want to injure the Natal sugar industry, but he wanted to show that that industry could go on, even if the figures were altered. Over and over again they were reminded that the diamond and gold industries were dying industries, so surely it was time they got the country on sound lines. Everything the farmer was using or was going to use was now taxed. Take flour; he was glad to see that the Minister did not propose an extra duty on it. Some years ago in the Transvaal they had started tinkering with the tariff, as the Minister was now doing, and they said they would put a duty of 1s. per bag on flour, and expected it to produce £20,000. That was one of the few instances when the people did not pay it. The reason was this: some day in the Transvaal they would have coppers, but they would not have coppers now. The 1s. a bag on flour did not equal a farthing a loaf, and the consumer therefore was not called upon to pay. The people who did pay were the bakers. Why, then, not put a tax on bakers? Later they again started tinkering with the tariff, and another 1s. a bag was put on flour, with the same result. The consumer again did not pay for it. In another year they put an extra 6d. on. That was 2s. 6d. altogether, which meant one halfpenny per loaf, and still the consumer did not pay. If another sixpence had been put on on this occasion, it would have meant that the price of bread would have gone up. The bakers would have been compelled to do it. Then the people would have said: “These thieving bakers, let us hang them to the lampposts, and so on.” Stability was the thing they wanted, and so far they had not got it. The hon. member went on to refer to the increase on the Customs duties on tea, and said that, as to butter, the duty 25 years ago was 10s., but now the duty was 18s. 9d. If the country had its markets full of these things, it would be a different matter; but they were not producing the stuff they wanted. If they were producing these things sufficiently, and wanted to keep the imported article out it was another thing; but, as he said, they were not producing them. In conclusion, the hon. member read a few quotations dealing with the subject of Protection.

said he knew that nothing he could say, or for the matter of that anyone else could say, would induce the Hon. Minister to proceed further this year in the adoption of a policy of protection and hence be would not detain the House for more than a moment, but he hoped that next year they would not be kept wavering between a policy of free trade and protection, and that a sound national protective policy would be laid down for this country. He did not and could not believe that the present proposals were the Alpha and the Omega, the be all and end all of the Hon. Minister’s fiscal policy. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had said rightly the previous evening that the Hon. Minister’s address had a strong tendency towards free trade whilst his proposals were of a distinctly protective character. He would ask the hon. member for Caledon not to judge a man by his words but by his deeds, and therein lay their hope for the future. The hon. member for Caledon, and other supporters of the policy of protection, as well as the speaker, should find consolation in the saying of a certain philosopher: “that speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts,” and this he thought could be applied to the Hon. Minister’s address.

During the first year of Union and every successive year he (Mr. Nicholson) had urged on Government and Parliament the abolition of the preferential rates, as such were against all sound business and economic principles. In the interest of the taxpayer, they should see that the country was run on sound business lines. He said that the preferential rates had not brought proportionately more trade to Great Britain, as her trade was increasing proportionately faster with the free trade parts of the Empire, such as Ceylon and India, than with the self-governing dominions; that Great Britain and the people of Great Britain had not asked for it; that the 3 per cent, rebated did not find its way into the British Treasury or into the pocket of the consumer, but into the pockets of the British manufacturer and the merchant importer. It was a very one-sided sort of imperialism, and as a test of loyalty, he had scouted that idea before to-day. The loyalty of the South African was to be measured by a higher standard than that of £ s. d. Under the preferential rates in 1912 for every £1 rebated by Australia for the benefit of South Africa, this country rebated £18 10s. for the benefit of Australia. He pointed out on previous occasions how, when the military authorities in England called for tenders for oats they deliberately excluded South African oats, and yet hon. members talked about reciprocity. He has also called attention to Australia’s treatment of South Africa’s explosives three years ago. He was flattered to think that on this occasion his views endorsed by eminent authorities on both sides of the House, and more especially by the right hon. member for Victoria West. If Great Britain did not alter her fiscal policy in the near future he would continue to urge the abolition of the preference policy. He said that the hon. member for Cape Town. Central (Mr. Jagger) had once more trotted out the old stalking horse “Dear Living,” and the poor old animal had been ridden to a skeleton up the hill of bitter experience. He would much like to know how much “dear living” the importers were responsible for? He thought the hon. member for Cape Town Central could tell them. Before protective duties were placed on matches, and match factories were started here, matches were retailed at 1d, per box. Now the local and the imported article were retailed at three boxes for 1d.—who pocketed the difference before? Another question the hon. member for Cape Town Central could reply to. No, free-traders preached the heresy of cheap imports and the protectionists preached the doctrine of developing their resources and building up of industries in their own country. As to the cry of cheap living, people did not go to a country in search of cheap bread, but to look for employment, and they went to what was termed protection ridden countries to look for and find it there. The hon. member for Cape Town Central asked the other evening what was the good of a sovereign if they could not buy anything with it? He (Mr. Nicholson) wished to reply by asking what was the good of cheap bread if they had not a penny to buy it with? No protection, no industries; no industries, no employment; no employment, no pennies; and no pennies, no cheap bread. He would like the hon. member for Cape Town Central to regard South Africa as something other than an immense warehouse for the offloading of oversea manufactured articles and products, to regard it as Canadian statesmen regarded Canada, when, by a protective policy, they saved her and made her the great dominion she is, and kept her from becoming what she would have become under a free trade policy, a province of the United States. Was South Africa the one young nation, regardless of its own interest, who refused to learn and be guided by the experience of other countries, ignoring the fact that an ounce of experience was worth more than a ton of theory? He hoped that before long South Africa under its present Ministry would rejoice in the possession of a sound, definite, fiscal policy.

said he did not know whether the Minister, when he introduced his motion, had anticipated a general debate on Free Trade and Protection. If this was going to be the question which every hon. member was going to speak on, then he (the speaker) would also have few words to say on that subject. However, for the present he wished to draw the attention of the House to a more concrete subject. (Hear, hear.) He saw from the tariff that the Minister proposed placing a duty of 11/4d. on full cream cheese and 6d. on other cheese. He quite agreed with that proposal. Mr. Pape, the expert, stated that full cream cheese could not be produced in this country, while the Cheddar kinds could be produced. At the same time he hoped the Minister would lay it down that a proper definition should be provided as to the composition of full cream cheese. The decision as to whether cheese was full cream cheese or not should not be left to the discretion of the Customs officer. He urged this so that other kinds of cheese should not be placed on the South African market under the guise of full cream cheese, thus coming in under a lower tariff. He held that there was a great future for the South African cheese industry, which he hoped the Minister would encourage in every possible manner.

said there was not a single manufacturer in the House so far as he knew, and the subject had not been put from the manufacturers’ point of view so far as Protection was concerned. Every country which had come to the front, or was now developing, had adopted some system of Protection. His view was that the extremists on both sides should be eliminated. We should go on on scientific lines, which had certainly not been done by the Minister, and should deal with raw materials and manufactured goods on different lines. We should try to do what has been done in Germany with great success and also in America, but not with such unqualified success. He did not see why a compromise could not be arrived at.

His complaint was that the Minister had shown no science in this matter at all. How could this House be asked to frame a scientific tariff, either protective, revenue, or free trade? It was an impossibility. He would submit that the only way to deal with the tariff effectively was by having some body permanently established to which representations could be made and weighed and that thereafter the Legislature of the country should deal with the matter on the evidence which had been weighed and sifted by a Commission. Let them take the 15 per cent. duty on fruit boxes. That duty was put on without due consideration of the circumstances of this country in order to establish a box-making industry here. It must be obvious to the Committee that the foundation of a wood box-making industry must be wood. There was no suitable wood in this country. That meant that the boxes were either made of unsuitable wood or imported wood, and, as had been pointed out, it practically came to protecting one or two wood merchants who had to import the wood and who, therefore, had an increased price for boxes or used local wood which had been so unsatisfactory that they had had to reject the boxes. That sort of thing would not happen if the Ministry had some scientific basis in this matter as laid down by the Minister himself in Durban in 1910, when he said that the tariff was a matter of supreme importance to the country and that one of the most essential things was to have stability in that tariff. What guarantee, asked Mr. Struben, had they of stability in this tariff to-day? None at all. The Minister left any amount of anomalies in the present tariff and also brought in new ones. Take the tax on bioscope films. It might be shown that that tax would work out as a very small increase for any particular bioscope business, or any particular performance, but let them look at the position from this point of view. The Minister had chosen one particular form of amusement for taxation. He knew that there was an amusement tax already in force in the Cape Province, and he left out of his proposition the amusements of the well-to-do, and he fastened on the amusements of the poor man. Was there any science in that? Then the Minister proposed to tax out of existence imported cheese made from skimmed milk, and imported loaded leather, but at the same time he had made no attempt so far to deal with the thing that this country was crying out for, viz., an Adulteration Act. Any man could make loaded leather in this country, and make skimmed cheese and sell it, but he must not import it.

He would give another instance. The Minister had proposed that glycerine should be imported in bulk free, to give a chance of refining glycerine in this country. The effect of that was that the De Beers factory, which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said were getting a present of £7,000 a year, had expended £30,000 in putting up a refining plant at the factory near Somerset West. That factory ordered 30,000 tons of glycerine a year. Glycerine could be made in this country, but, seeing that it was controlled when it came here by a trust, which fixed the price, it had hardly been worth the while of any man in this country to make glycerine, but, when there was a factory established here, he was informed that it would be quite worth while making glycerine in South Africa to the tune of 3,000 tons a year at the value of from £150,000 to £200,000. He thought that was an encouragement to local industries. He could not follow the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, in regard to this alleged fallacy of keeping money in the country. The difference between the raw material imported and the refined would be something like £30,000, which represented money that would have to be spent in this country, and, of course, the bulk of it would go in the payment of wages to men who were living in this country.

It did seem to him that if they could induce people to start here, it meant employment of people and the payment of wages, and they were doing a better turn than telling them they ought to be producers of primary products and export their produce to other countries. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had said: “Thank God, we have no industries in this country! ” Now the question was: What was to become of the people who were not able to farm? In a new country it was not only legitimate, but absolutely necessary, for its development, that the industries of that country should be protected. In this connection Mr. Struben alluded to the position in the United States before the War of Independence in relation to industries and subsequent to the declaration of peace. He said that after the end of the war goods were again sent to America from England, and the local manufacturers found themselves in two years’ time in most sore straits. Then came the cry for protection. He admitted that in America protection had grown and grown to the most exorbitant extent. The argument was that once they had protection it was impossible to take it off. He would point hon. members to what was happening in America now. Under the new Wilson tariff a great deal of protection was taken off, because the Americans said that they had come to the stage when they could do without the high protection that existed on many things. There was no doubt that in protective countries at a certain point competition came in to keep prices down. He would like to ask free traders, if this doctrine were so foolish, why was it that Germany was most terribly put about when Canada proposed not only to have a protective tariff, but a tariff giving preference to Great Britain and the rest of the Dominions?

As was well known, every one of the self-governing Dominions had adopted a protective tariff. It was all very well for the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) to say they would have developed in the same manner if a protective tariff had not been adopted, but they had to remember that it would have taken a very much longer time for them to have reached their present state of prosperity, and that manufacturers would have been engaged a long time in unremunerative businesses. He would also like to remind the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), that the iron and textile trades of Great Britain were all founded on a protective tariff. These tariffs in the early days of England’s prosperity placed her in the front, and although afterwards abolished she has never yet been caught up by the other nations. If hon. members read the Statutes in the times of Henry VII. and afterwards, they would find that protection was adopted in every possible way. Goods arriving in England, had to be carried in British bottoms, and the same with regard to the export of goods. This continued until the time of the Napoleonic wars, when the English Government had to increase its tariff to a very large extent, in order to carry on those wars. Then, after they were over, an agitation was raised against these excessive tariffs, and an agitation took place for their entire abolition. The Manchester School rose, and the whole system of duties was swept away. It was only because that, under war conditions, the tariffs had been raised so high that they were abolished altogether. He, therefore, thought he was justified in stating that England’s trade had been established by a policy of protection. A modified system of protection was being adopted in England at the present time, in connection with the patent laws, which practically compelled foreign manufacturers to make their patented goods in England. He maintained that in this country railway tariffs were closely bound up with the Customs tariff. Mr. Struben then went on to quote an instance where the tariff on dynamite to the competitive areas worked out unfairly in the case of those manufacturers whose works were stationed some distance from the market. For example, the Cape Explosives paid a railway rate of 112d. per 100 lb. for the 954 miles of railway; Kynochs 92d. per 100 lb. for a distance of 486 miles; while the B.S.A. Explosives dynamite was hauled at the rate of 6d. per 100 lb. over a distance of 20 miles. He asked the House to consider these figures, because it would be seen that one company which had only to pay a railway rate of 6d. had an advantage over those companies who had to convey their goods over a longer distance. The railway rate acted as a protective tariff to manufacturers stationed near the competitive area. He, therefore, thought the question of railway rate and Customs tariff were so intimately bound up together that they ought to be considered at one and the same time.

said he did not propose entering into a discussion on Free Trade v. Protection at that late stage of the session. He thought the tariff proposals of the Government had not been carefully revised before being placed upon the Table of the House. They were told that certain principles had actuated the Government in making those proposals, one of which was that they desired to give certain encouragement to manufacturers by way of remission of taxes on raw materials. The only instance in that connection which he could find was canvas. Now that was all very well so far as that particular industry was concerned, but when they came to other industries, they found that the tariff was going to have the very opposite result. For example, there was varnish, and this apparently was done for the reason that colonial spirit would be used up. Had the Minister considered that certain varnish came in as raw material for the wagon and furniture and printing trade, and he was told that the result was going to be that the printing industry was going to pay 50 per cent. on that raw material. He had quoted these instances to show that the proposals before them had not been fully considered. There was a tendency to depart from the old simple tariff, and go in for a tariff that was very complicated. He did not know who the Minister had consulted with regard to some of the definitions that were laid down.

For example, he would draw the Minister’s attention to the definition in connection with gold and silver plated ware. The Minister justified the duty by saying that he was going to tax luxuries. He did not think that any of them had any objection to articles of luxury being taxed, but he felt bound to say that when this particular definition came to be applied they would find that it would apply to all sorts of things not now contemplated by the House. Could the Minister give him a definition of plated ware? Was a purse or a walking stick with a trifle of plating to be regarded as plated ware? It all meant difficulty with the Customs. By departing from the old, simple percentage on all goods of this description, and singling out just one or two items for special rating, the Government would lay up trouble for officials and merchants alike. It would entail a special staff to define what would come under a particular heading and what would not Such a complication must lead to all sorts of friction between the importers and the Customs authorities, and involve, too, a good deal of injustice and litigation. There would be different interpretations at different parts by different officials. They would have different interpretations by different officers, and he defied any single person to tell him under the definition of jewellery when hairpins and buckles became jewellery and ceased to be ordinary articles of haberdashery. He believed in a tariff, simplicity was desirable, and the Minister was going in a wrong direction in going in for a complicated tariff of this kind with definitions that were most general in their terms.

said that he was disappointed at the tariff proposals of the Minister. This was a young country, which should be protected, as otherwise people here would for years to come yet have to remain dependent on other countries, and South African industries would be unable to develop Other countries provided a considerable amount of protection to their products. Not all people could be placed on the land, and industries should be established, and these industries must be protected. He trusted therefore that the proposed tariff would not be the final word. He held it was better to have a dear breakfast than to have no work. Protection would provide work and enable poor whites to go farming.

said he considered the tax on bioscopes was fully justified, and although he had received a few petitions from his own district for the diminution of the tax, he was unable to oppose the new proposal. He wished to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville in regard to Afrikander boys. They should try and bring the races together, and now the hon. member for Troyeville came here and told the House that the imported people were so much better than the Afrikander boy. What was the good of remarks like that? They could only create racialism, and he hoped the hon. member would in the future be more careful in his remarks.

said that every Commission which had sat in this country had said that the high cost of living was one of the greatest barriers to progress. If the tariff was carried, several of the industries existing in South Africa would be injured, and the Minister was adopting a wrong means of raising revenue. Whether they had a Free Trade or Protectionist country, the poor man did not benefit. It was a matter of history that no country existing to-day had adopted Protection as a sound fiscal policy, but only in the case of emergency, and he instanced Germany and the U.S.A. Holland was still a Free Trade country. In 1911, when the Prime Minister of Holland asked for a great loan, he said he wanted the country to understand that he was not in any way speaking in favour of Protection. Holland’s exports had increased at a far greater rate than those of other countries. Any wise action the Government could take to bring their industries to strength and maturity should be taken. Nearly all the industries in the U.S.A. were started and became strong before there was any Protection at all. Australia did not owe her prosperity to Protection. Eighty per cent, of the exports of that country were unprotected. In Canada, Protection had very largely increased the cost of living. It was quite true that they wanted revenue, but there was another way of getting it, and he would come to that later. The productive efficiency of the working-classes was a most important consideration to them, and that efficiency depended on the amount and quality of food those people get hold of. He objected to the tax on peas and beans and sugar. What was the good of talking about producing eggs and maintaining the poultry industry in this country unless they could get suitable food at a suitable price, but in spite of the fact that they could not, they were to have a tax on what they had not the opportunity of adequately producing. It was necessary that they have mealies at no higher that ten shillings and wheat at no higher than sixteen shillings, and then it could be done at a profit to the farmer. In reference to an interruption, Mr. Haggar said he had been a farmer himself and could do it. (Laughter.) He had been brought up on a farm and knew a good deal about it. He was not born in a wood and brought up in a forest. The farmers were satisfied in many cases to get ten shillings for mealies which went oversea, but they wanted ten shillings for mealies of a poorer quality which they offered for sale in this country. At present it was quite impossible to expect eggs to be produced at the cost of 1s. 6d. per dozen to sell at 10d. per dozen. That was not good enough. The hon. member went on to point out how those proposals hampered industry, and in this connection instanced the manufacture of jam. He pointed out that in the north of Queensland, a large mining district, they could buy good jam at 4d. per lb., although it had been taken from 2,000 to 2,500 miles.

What about the living wage?

contended that it cost as much in this country to produce a ton of sugar with coolie labour as it cost in Queensland with white labour; moreover, fruit was much cheaper in South Africa than it was there. There were thousands of tons of fruit rotting here which might be manufactured into good jam. Then there was the great evil of tuberculosis. It was admitted on all hands that tuberculosis was the result of poverty and degraded conditions. If they wanted this country to go ahead, the people must be well fed, and have the opportunity of getting plenty of good meat, but the poorer people here could not afford to get good food. How was it that in countries where the food was cheapest there was the least of that disease? In North Queensland they had a case in point where the death-rate was not above 7.4 per 1,000, and they got three meals a day of fresh meat. He saw that the French doctors were saying that it was impossible for them to cope with that disease until good food was made cheaper than it was at the present time. They on the cross-benches regarded those proposals not only as being the wrong sort, the incidence was wrong, but they were altogether in the wrong direction. The Minister was looking in the right direction, but what they wanted was a march forward. There was only one legitimate and sound source of taxation, and that was on unearned increments. That which was created by the community ought to be for the benefit of the community.

said that the hon. Minister had not forgotten the natives in his taxation proposals. The native had already to pay a duty of 25 per cent. ad valorem on the goods for which he was the principal customer, such as beads, blankets, second-hand clothing, etc., and in the new tariff the duty had been raised from 15 to 25 per cent. ad valorem on certain articles of women’s second-hand clothing, mantles, shawls, rugs, whether of wool, cotton, or hair, confectionery, cheap jewellery, leather manufactures and other articles of native consumption. The natives were also becoming great users of tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tinned butter, lards and other tinned foodstuffs, and would have to pay the increased duty on them.

He himself thought that in a country like that a certain amount of protection was necessary, but it must be wise protection, and not calculated to defeat its own ends, or calculated to increase the cost of living, and he found that the manufacturers as a rule in this country did not attempt to make small profits on a large output, but that the producers of articles, farmers and others, wanted to make large profits out of a small output. Unless colonial industry produced an article which was considerably cheaper than the imported article and nearly—as good, how could they expect people to support it? As a rule, they found that the colonial article was not up to the imported article, and the price was nearly the same. People should be willing to take smaller profits on larger outputs, and he hoped that would be realised.

said that he must say that amongst the manufacturers and others there was some disappointment that so many of the recommendations of the Industries Commission had not been carried out in the present tariff proposals. When he had heard the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) refer to the Manufacturers’ Association, he thought that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) would have replied, but instead of that he had simply asked that they should go on at once to the proposals.

Hear, hear. The sooner the better. (Laughter.)

went on to say that as to what had been said about articles used by the farmer being taxed, they expected that. If he was paying more for his bread-stuffs, others should be expected to pay more for sugarstuffs, so that they were all linked up together, by which they could build up a protective policy for the country. Alluding to what had been said about the duty on sugar, the sugar planters had been made out to be very wicked individuals by the hon. member opposite. He did say that when the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had made the remark he had the previous day, “was it an extraordinary thing that these people were such firm supporters of the Government,” it was going a little bit beyond fairplay, because in 1898, when the Cape and the Orange Free State and Natal had entered into a Customs Union, the duty on sugar then had been just as high as it was at the present time, in fact, a little higher, and long before Union had been thought of the same duties were in operation as were in operation at the present day and it was not fair to impute such motives as the hon. member had done—that the duty was as it was because they supported the Government. As to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said, he seemed to convey to the House that the country was suffering to the extent of £315,000 by reason of that duty. But was it so? Suppose they took the duty off, and they imported sugar—

The consumer gets it.

You can’t take the duty off and get the revenue you want.

The consumer saves £315,000, which he now pays to you.

My point is this: If you take the duty off and let sugar in, and kill the local industry, then £315,000 is lost as revenue. The hon. member says that it comes out of the pockets of the consumer. So it does, but so does everything else. How about the business of the hon. member?

You are protected by the State. That mal es all the difference.

said that in Australia the price of best quality sugar was £23 5s. per ton, confectionery sugar was £22 15s. per ton, whilst the price of sugar in South Africa was only £17 10s. per ton, so that the hon. member for Troyeville could not complain very much of the price paid by manufacturers. The hon. member’s position was that the duty on sugar should be abolished.

A very good thing too.

I shall be very happy to pass that on to my constituents when I go back. (Laughter.) The Natal sugar industry has been in existence for fifty years.

It has not got beyond the infancy stage yet.

to Mr. Jagger: You have had your speech.

The hon. member for Cape Town has had a very fair hearing.

said that the Natal sugar industry had gone through great struggles, and it was now within reach of supplying the whole of South Africa with sugar, and was deserving of more consideration. The duty on sugar in South Africa was not high as compared with the duty in other portions of the Empire. For instance, the duty in Ceylon was 4s. per hundredweight, Mauritius 4s. 6d., Seychelles 5s., Australia 6s., Canada 2s. 111/2d., and Jamaica 2s. The proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would be unfair to the industry, and also to the Union as a whole, for it would smash the industry. So, long as sugar was grown in South Africa, we could always be sure of competition; but let South African sugar disappear, the price of every pocket of sugar brought here would go up, and we should be completely at the mercy of the sugar speculators. The same applied to every other South African industry. There was an impression abroad that the sugar planter was a young millionaire. He was a sugar planter, and he wished that that impression was true. (Hear, hear.) He wished he could pay 1s. 6d. in the £ on his income. The very wealthy planters could be counted on one hand, but there were hundreds of small sugar growers in Natal, some of whom had a capital of only £500. If an attempt were made to reduce the sugar tax, these men would be cleared off the land within twelve months. (Hear, hear.) It was not worthy of any hon. member to propose a thing which would create such a position as that. Reference had been made to a sugar company which had a capital of £25,000, and made £21,000 in one year. Well, £200,000 had been spent on this property by the original company, which had failed, and the new company to which reference had been made took over the assets. None of the Natal sugar companies paid more than 10 per cent. Although there had been no suggestion made to the Committee to increase the sugar duty, yet there had been these extraordinary outbursts in order to injure the industry. If there had been any suggestion to decrease the sugar duty, the Natal people would not have voted for Union with both hands as they did. Natal was, to a certain extent, the Cinderella of the Union. (An Hon. Member: No.) The coast lands of Natal had the tropical industries of sugar and tea growing, which did not exist in any other part of South Africa. It had to look after itself very closely, and it expected that hon. members who had taken it into Union would look after it also. The sugar-growing industry was suffering from a great lack of labour, which had also increased in price, and this was not an opportune time to suggest that it should be blotted out of existence. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to ask the Minister of Finance what course he proposed to take in this debate? In order to move any reduction in the whole tariff, would it not be necessary before they voted on these two compartments to have the schedule before them?

said that the course he proposed to take was this. They were now proceeding with the general discussion on the tariff, because a number of hon. members wanted to take part in such a general discussion, but he hoped that the general discussion would not last too long, and that they would soon be able to come to the details of the tariff. Then he proposed to follow the suggestion which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had made, and take these specific increases which he had brought forward in the tariff item by item, and only when they got to that stage would there be any voting. This, of course, was subject to any ruling of the Chairman in regard to procedure.

said he thought the proper course would be for the Minister to move the tariff and then they could put the schedule as a whole.

said that, as a matter of fact, the whole schedule was before them. He wished to make one remark in regard to the admirable speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. When speaking of one of the primary industries and referring to the price of foodstuffs, etc., he said that they were taxed in their labour. Did not the hon. member see how arguments of that sort damped any enthusiasm there might be on the part of the wage-earner for a reduction in these tariffs and a reduction in the cost of living? Would he tell him (Mr. Creswell) whether the product which the man who worked produced sold for any less amount because food was cheaper? The selling value remained the same, but he and his confreres proposed to take the whole of that production for their own pockets. A reduced cost of living was not going to help to make the wages a man earned more valuable to him; it was going to enable the employer to get his labour at a cheaper rate. He was not going into the old fallacy of saying that a high cost of living was a good thing for a country, but a low cost of living was no good to the masses of the public so long as society was organised as it was to-day. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had pointed out what a tax it was on the mass of the people of the country in having to pay these protective duties. To the average man the amount that was taken off what he produced in Government revenues and other ways was only one of many deductions from his earnings, made to support a large number of persons who, under the present organisation of society, were enabled to put their hands into his pockets. He only wanted to make one more remark. The Minister had said in his speech on the Budget that it would be a crime to increase the cost of living by any proposal of his. Some of these duties would increase the cost of living to a greater extent than need be. They were told that it was necessary to meet increased expenditure by imposing additional taxation. Before they came and increased the taxation of the people by means of Customs tariff they should put a tax where it ought to be, a good, really honest land tax, and then, if they did that there would be no need for these increases. They on the cross-benches were dead against these increases in the Customs tariff, and they wanted to see a reduction of various items, which would tend to decrease the cost of living in this country.

said he thought it must be perfectly clear that the higher the taxes on the necessaries of life were so much greater must be the increased cost that fell on the consumer. (Hear, hear.) Where they took a tax off again the consumer in the long run got the benefit of that.

The Minister in introducing the Bill had confessed that he had spent many sleepless nights over it. He (Mr. Nathan) quite believed that, because in 1910 the Minister, when speaking in Natal, was a Protectionist, and listening to him some weeks ago he appeared to have become a Free Trader, while yesterday he seemed to be neither the one nor the other. He (Mr. Nathan) also had spent sleepless nights over these tariff proposals, but, unfortunately, he had neither the responsibilities nor the emoluments of the Minister. He (Mr. Nathan) maintained that they could not lay down a hard and fast rule with regard to their tariff policy, but the only safe rule to adopt was that each industry should be dealt with on its own merits. Everybody wanted to see the prime industries of this country developed, but in dealing with those industries which were of a bastard character, he did not see why they should try to encourage one more than another. Mr. Nathan went on to mention the macaroni trade, which had been established in Johannesburg, where a capital of £10,000 was invested in the business. At present the consumption of this article was very small in the country. He supposed that macaroni could be manufactured from wheat grown in the Transvaal and in the Orange Free State, and if there was a small tax upon the imported article it was presumed that they would thus encourage the growth of wheat in the Union. In the speeches which had been made on this question he had heard nothing about the bounty system. Of course, they remembered the case of a jam factory at Parys, which was fed by the bounty system, but as soon as the bonus was withheld the factory closed down, although he was not quite so sure that it was the fault of the bounty system. Perhaps, after all, he was inclined to agree with the Minister of Finance that they should not have a hard and fast line in these matters. He had been endeavouring to see if the new tariff would increase the cost of living, and he was bound to say that it would, and what was more, these proposals would place the burden upon those who were least able to bear it. He would mention such items as Nos. 26 and 24—substitutes for butter. Compounds of lard were daily used by poor people because they could not afford to buy the better article. The tariff on coffee, eggs, leather and tea was to be increased, and these were all articles which particularly affected the working-classes. He had been assured by large importers of tea that this tax would not achieve the purpose, but would bear hardly on the poor man. If they put an extra 1d. on, the retail dealer would sell at 3d. extra per lb., so as to get his little bit. If the Minister wanted to help some of their industries he might well consider the position of the Premier Gate Fence and Wire Co. He had assisted said manufacturers, and he might well take this other industry into consideration. The hon. member went on to refer to calendars which were sent by people in England to their friends here. There was a minimum duty, he thought, of 1s., and then 6d. had to be paid for a stamp on the Customs form. He saw no remedy for that here, although some time back he saw the Minister on the subject and asked him to bring about some alteration. He strongly supported the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West, that this tariff should have gone to a Select Committee. A non-party Select Committee would have arrived at a better solution than they could do in that House.

said he approved of the proposed increases in the tariff, and even regretted that the Government had not seen its way to go further. Some articles could very well bear a heavier burden, whilst the tobacco industry ought to receive a higher measure of protection. They could grow the very best tobacco in South Africa, but the people concerned did not know how best to grow it. The Minister of Agriculture ought to devote his attention to that matter. It was a sound principle to tax imported tobacco for the purpose of protecting the local industry. The local tobacco was certainly not so good as it might be, but that was due to the fact that the farmers had not sufficient technical knowledge, and the protection now given to tobacco was not sufficient. People who smoked should be compelled to use the locally-produced article. The farmers should be taught how to prepare the tobacco in order to compete with the imported article. At the present time they were importing too many cigarettes and cigars.

More protection was also needed for the wagon-making industry. Why could not they be given the required protection, the speaker asked. If they protected wood, the result would be that more local wood would be used. That was in the interest of the country, of agriculture of forestry, and of the railways. The Humansdorp line existed mainly because of the need for transporting wood, and if that article was protected, the amount to be transported would increase. They should, for instance, tax felloes and spokes according to length, which would have no influence on wagonmaking, but would lead to more local wood being used. A felloe which was not longer than 27 inches should be taxed 3d., and a spoke 2d., which would only be 11s. 8d. per wagon for the four wheels.

Then horse and mule breeding should be assisted by increasing the import duty on those animals. The import duty on mules could be raised from £1 to £2, so as to protect local breeders. The import duty on slaughter cattle could easily be doubled, seeing that there was enough meat in South Africa to render supplies from abroad unnecessary. If ever they wanted to have an export trade in meat, it was necessary to protect the industry. Free Trade sounded all right, but it was not going to do any good for South Africa, as the country was not yet strong enough to compete with other countries. The first thing to do was to make it stronger The country required protection, and then they would be able to develop it. The articles which were now being exported ought to be manufactured here, and then, alter supplying the local market, the residue could be exported.

Wool, diamonds, gold, and skins ought to be worked here, and when that was done there would be plenty of room for immigrants to come in, and they would be able to set their doors wide open. That time, however, had not yet come. It was the principle of his party that there should be moderate protection, and it was necessary to adhere to that principle, so that they would not afterwards have to reproach themselves on the subject.

As he could not see that there was any great hurry in dealing with a subject of such great importance, he moved the adjournment of the debate. Had they not been promised opportunities for a full discussion?

Progress was reported and leave granted to sit again on Monday.