from farmers and owners of property in the Cape and Malmesbury districts, praying that an inquiry be made with a view to extending the Milnerton line of railway in the direction of Philadelphia and Kalabas Kraal (two petitions).

from inhabitants of Warden, for telephonic and postal communication with Harrismith and for the appointment of a Special Justice of the Peace.

brought up the first and second reports of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

It was agreed that the reports, together with the evidence, be printed and set down for consideration on Monday next.

brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

It was agreed that the report be printed and set down for consideration on Thursday next.

said that he would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this extraordinary procedure was due to the fact that the Government were going to drop the land tax altogether?

pointed out that the question before the House was the date for the second reading of this Bill.

It was agreed that the Bill be set down for second reading on Thursday next.

brought up a Bill to impose an Excise duty on matches manufactured within the Union.

The Clerk was about to read the Bill a first time, when—

rising to a point of order, asked whether the Minister was in order in moving that the Bill should now he read a first time?

said that the hon. member for Jeppe was quite right, since the resolution of Committee of Ways and Means had not been reported.

concurred.

The Bill was withdrawn.

laid on the Table a return prepared in accordance with the Exchequer and Audit Act, showing particulars of special warrants issued by the Governor-General during the period May 1-31, 1914. He moved that the return be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The motion was agreed to.

laid on the Table a similar return with respect to the period April 1-30, 1914, and moved that it be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The motion was agreed to.

laid on the Table the report of the Postmaster-General for the year 1913.

moved that the resolution be adopted.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether any agreement had been come to with Rhodesia in regard to the changes which it was proposed to introduce. He pointed out that Rhodesia was a party to the last Customs agreement. It was a great trade they had with Rhodesia, something like £1,313,000, while the trade that Rhodesia had with them was £117,000. An endeavour should be made to carry Rhodesia with them, because it was a grave step indeed. It was not only Rhodesia, the hon. member pointed out, but also the Congo Free State north of that which should be considered.

said that he might say that one of the first steps taken had been to inform Rhodesia fully of the proposals which they intended to lay before the House and which had been laid before the House, and they had not hitherto heard a single word from Rhodesia of objection to those proposals, although it was some weeks ago. Rhodesia was limited to a certain tariff, and they (the Union) were far beyond that tariff. The Minister was understood to say that their tariff was 9 per cent. Whatever changes they were making now would not seriously affect Rhodesia; there might be trouble between the Union and Rhodesia in future as to Customs arrangements, but it would not have anything to do with the Customs tariff of the Union, but the Free Trade between the Union and Rhodesia.

said that resolution No: 2 had not been submitted to them, and asked whether it was competent to consider resolution No. 3.

said that resolution had already been submitted.

said that the Bill had not been brought up.

said that that did not matter.

The motion was then agreed to.

I appoint the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of the House to bring up the Bill.

moved under item No. 50, “Waters” in paragraphs (a) and (b), before “pint” and “pints” where they occur to insert “reputed”; and following item No. 51, under the heading “General Notes,” to omit the last paragraph on page 696, and to substitute (“ ‘Adulterated or loaded leather’ shall mean leather (other than chrome and other mineral and combination leathers) that contains more than 3 per cent. of mineral ash, or more than 2 per cent. of glucoses and dextrinoids, or any organic matters other than pure tannins, fats, oils, wax and stearine, that are essential to the manufacture of leather. Chrome and other mineral and combination leathers shall not, however, have added there to, or be loaded with, barium, lead, or tin compounds, or magnesium sulphate, or sodium sulphate. Proceeding, the Minister said he thought they ought not to spend too much time on that. (Cheers.) He hoped that hon. members, in view of the length of the session, would curtail the general discussion. (Hear, hear.)

next moved that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) stand over until the tariff had been dealt with, and that they consider the tariff seriatim, according to class.

This was agreed to.

Class 1 was under consideration.

moved as an amendment, in item No. 7, that the duty on butterine, margarine, etc., be reduced from 31/4d. to 21/4d. The hon. member said that the Minister had put under that compounds of lard, which, under the old schedule, stood at lid. Butterine and margarine were not deleterious substances, but thoroughly wholesome. He did not know any tariff where butterine and margarine were put at a higher rate than butter.

hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment. If imported goods were made so cheap, the people who lived in the coastal districts would not buy agricultural produce.

said he had not heard any justification from the Minister for these increases, and he could find nothing in the Commission’s report. In other countries, he pointed out, steps were taken to prevent people being supplied with substitutes for butter without knowing them. There was no essential difference between ghee and butter. Ghee was Buffalo butter. He pointed out that in New Zealand, which was a great butter-producing country, substitutes were allowed in free. He thought they should not be down on sound, healthy substitutes for butter, because, by adopting such an attitude, they would only make the poor man’s food dearer.

moved the deletion of item 19.

said there would be an opportunity of dealing with the item when they got to it. Continuing, he said he did not think a good defence had been set up for margarine, ghee, and so on. There was no doubt that people ate what they thought was butter, but which was really some adulterated compound. If they were going to assist an industry like the dairy industry, this was the way. (Cheers.) He thought the Commission had acted in a most reasonable manner, and he did not think a good case had been made out for these bogus substances.

said that the Minister’s remarks pointed to the necessity of strengthening the law so the people would not be imposed upon. He pointed out that nuttose was merely butter made from nuts. (Laughter.) He thought the Minister, after his remarks, should strengthen the law, and make it penal for people selling substitutes under the name of butter.

said he thought that the Minister had adopted the correct policy.

pointed out that most of these compounds did not look like butter at all. He pointed out that they were not only used by poor people, but were used for manufacturing purposes to a great extent.

moved the abolition of the preference on “butterine.”

said he could not accept the proposal, as it meant an increase of taxation.

Oh, no, it is a decrease.

said he asked the Chairman’s ruling as to whether the amendment could be admitted. He submitted that the amendment would mean an increase of taxation.

said he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska.

said he would like to remind members of the House that there were a great number of people in this country who could not afford to buy butter—it was beyond their means. Their only chance of getting the requisite fat in their food was by buying substitutes. If the Minister in imposing the tax thought that he was stopping the sale of inferior products, then there might be some reason for it. It was a necessary article of diet and he thought they would be very ill-advised to impose the tax which was suggested. Good butter in many portions of the country was beyond the means of the people.

said the Minister had told them in his Budget Speech that it would be a crime to increase the cost of living. Yet he suggested a tax of that description which would certainly increase the cost of living. The putting of a tax on margarine was not going to increase the sale of Colonial butter. It was an article that was used by the poorer classes, and he thought the Minister was ill-advised in suggesting such a tax. It was the first item on the list which would increase the cost of living, and therefore he objected to it. He hoped the Minister would reconsider the matter.

said that if butter substitutes were injurious the proper course to adopt was to prohibit their importation altogether. There was absolutely no justification for the tax unless the Minister could assure him that the substitutes were injurious to the people.

objected to the item on the grounds that it was one of the first things necessary to the people. They had had very little said about one of the most important products of the country, and that was the population. If they really wanted to help the products of the country, surely the food of the children should be supplied as cheaply as possible. The hon. member for Zululand had treated the duties as if they were of no consequence, because, he had said, the cost of living would be passed from one on to another. The taxation of milk and butter would principally affect the children.

said he was very sorry that his amendment could not be accepted. Poor people up-country never used butter substitutes, but cheap tail fat.

said the House understood from the Minister of Finance that the chief object of the increased duty on butter substitutes was to keep them out of the country, but they found from the hon. member for Prieska that the real object was to increase the sale of cheap sheep tail fat. (Laughter) There should be a minimum wage for all workers based on a good standard of living, which should include good Colonial-made butter. Did the Minister know that the majority of poor people who had to buy butter substitutes knew perfectly well that they were substitutes, but these poor people were unable to afford the genuine article? A lot of these butter substitutes were bought for the making of household cakes and pastry, for which purpose they answered fairly well. Only Indians use ghee. People would not fly to butter if it were made difficult to obtain butter substitutes, because there would not be sufficient butter to go round, and for another the price of Colonial butter would go up if there were more competition. Consequently there would be no bigger number of butter consumers, but there would be a decrease in the quantity of butter put on each piece of bread.

in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said that a special tax was put on ghee, which was used by Indians because of their religious principles. Surely this was a vicious thing to do. He moved to reduce the rate of duty on ghee by one penny.

moved that butter be struck out with a view to its being inserted in the free list.

thought the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had allowed his zeal to eat him up. Indians did not consume very much ghee, using instead mustard oil. But if Indians used ghee for religious purposes the question of whether the cost was 1d. a pound more or less would make very little difference. He was a farmer, but he agreed that there ought not to be a duty on butter.

deprecated the idea of taking 20 or 30 thousand pounds’ value out of the pockets of the poorer classes in order to protect the dairymen who at present did not produce sufficient butter to meet the requirements of the country. The people who were going to be heavily hit were those who could not increase their incomes to the extent of the fresh taxes, and would therefore have to be content with less of the necessaries of life.

entered his protest against this extra taxation, because he had always understood the policy of the Government was to reduce the cost of living, but here they had proposals totally opposed to that principle. Judging by the enormous quantity of butter substitutes imported there could be no doubt as to the shoulders that would have to bear the burden. There was another commodity he would like to see placed on the free list, and that was condensed milk. Something like £164,000 value was imported annually, and as there was no industry of the sort in this country he thought this should be eliminated from the list.

maintained that no case had been shown for increasing the tariff on butter substitutes. It could not be said that margarine and other like products prevented the sale of Colonial butter, because the law protected the farmer against that being done.

said there was one aspect of the question he would like the Minister to consider. It was that while cottoline and coconut oil were allowed to come in free when used by manufacurers, yet when the same products were introduced as foodstuffs they were taxed. He thought that was a bad policy to adopt, and he was going to vote against it.

reminded the Minister of his statement that the policy of the Government was not to increase the cost of living. He hoped the Minister would remember that and consent to allow these foodstuffs to remain as they were.

wished to speak a word on behalf of his constituents, who bought these substitutes for butter very largely, and the proposed tariff would hit them hard indeed. He could not see how it was going to profit the farmer, because those people who at present bought these substitutes would not buy the real article. His experience was that the best Colonial butter was generally 2d. or 3d. dearer per lb. than the best imported, and its quality was no better, and could not be depended on. He would rather favour the amendment of the member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins), to put butter itself into class 5 and do away with the extra tax on its substitutes.

pointed out that the difference between lard and lard substitutes would be only ⅝d. The consequence would be that lard would be imported in larger quantities.

Dr. Watkins’ amendment was negatived.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

put the question: That the rate of duty under item No. 7,

“ Butterine”, etc., 31/4d., proposed by Mr. Jagger, be reduced, stand part of the tariff.

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

Ayes—54.

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 Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

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

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

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 P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

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

Noes—37.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

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

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and H. E. S. Fremantle, tellers.

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

said he would like the Chairman to explain why he refused to accept the amendment to reduce the whole charge to 3d. all round, and strike out the preference of one farthing?

said that the hon. member for Prieska, he thought, did not move an amendment of that kind. He understood the hon. member, when he came to the Table to have moved to strike out the reference to preference.

I never said “preference”; I said “rebate.”

said he thought it was a self-evident fact that both the hon. member for Prieska and the right hon. the member for Victoria West were not desirous of reducing the cost of living. The only thing was that this was an opportunity by a side wind of knocking out preference, which it had already been decided by the Committee should not enter into this matter.

said that he noticed in item 1C, Cement, 1s. 3d. per 400 lb., the words “for building purposes ” appeared. These words did not appear in the last tariff, and he would like to know what was the reason for inserting them now.

was understood to say that there were a number of small verbal amendments which had been made in the tariff. There was no increase on the duty on cement at all.

said he was afraid his hon. friend had been badly instructed. It would be well if he had his brief in these matters.

said that he hoped the words “for building purposes ” would be eliminated. He did not believe for one moment that the words had been put in for nothing. He did not suggest that the Minister was deceiving the House, but he was afraid that the hon. gentleman was willingly allowing himself to be deceived.

Is this simply a repetition of the old tariff?

It is the old tariff.

said he thought if there were one thing on which the duty should be reduced it was cement. They found cement companies making profits of 40 to 60 per cent., and cement was very necessary for the carrying out of irrigation works and things of that sort throughout the country. He understood that the conditions in the cement trade here were of such a character that cement made in the interior was sold at coast ports at cheaper rates than the price at which it was sold practically within the vicinity of the works themselves.

said that under the old tariff no distinctions were made, but now they were going to lay down a distinction, and say only when cement was required for building purposes was it going to be charged. Would irrigation works be included under “building purposes ”? He moved, as an amendment, that the words “for building purposes ” be deleted.

said that there was some danger, as the hon. member had pointed out.

said there was nothing in the point of the hon. member at all. Cement was not used for agricultural purposes, but for building purposes.

said that cement was an article of such absolute necessity for building purposes in that country and for irrigation works that ne did not know why his hon. friend should not put on the same duty for all kinds of cement.

said that cement which was used for building houses or for other constructional purposes fell under that tariff, but there was some so-called cement which was not really cement.

said it was always dangerous to put in a specific definition like that, and the mere fact of putting in these words “for building purposes” seemed to indicate a limitation. He thought they were simply laying up difficulties for themselves. He moved that the following words be substituted: “Not being cement as defined in item 87.”

referring to preferential rates, said that the railways were doing to-day services which were absolutely unnecessary. Pretoria cement could compete right down to Oudtshoorn. The company there maintained that they sold at the same price elsewhere as at Pretoria. If they gave a fair protective duty at the coast they could have cement manufactured here, and if the Government would undertake to guarantee that the present landed cost of the cement would remain and they would not allow dumping, there were firms willing to start factories.

criticised what the last speaker had said.

Just like preference.

said that the difference was this. In the case of preference the purchaser got a reduction, but in the case of the proposals of his hon. friend he wanted to put an extra price on the imported article. The consumer got the benefit in the one case, but not in the other. He would propose that in the case of cement they alter the proposal from 1s. 3d. per cask, to 3 per cent. He added that the carriage of cement made it extremely expensive up-country, and his hon. friend ought to reduce it to 3 per cent. all round. He moved to omit item No. 10, “Cement.”

said he could understand the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, but he could not understand the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, and he hoped that the hon. member would withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort seemed to consider that what he was proposing was to get some benefit out of it, but that was not the case. Some years ago he had proposed that the country should undertake a systematic conservation of water, and with that idea he wanted to get cement cheap all over the country. He did not believe in trusts, and thought that they should be upset.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, was put, and negatived.

put the question: That item No. 10, “Cement”, proposed by Sir T. Smartt, to be omitted, stand part of the tariff, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—57.

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 Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Hull, Henry Charles

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

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

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

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

Noes—33.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Quinn, John William

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Emile Nathan and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt, negatived.

wanted to know the difference between No. 12, chicory and substitutes for coffee, and No. 17. coffee mixed.

said that no alteration had been made to No. 12, but No. 17 had been altered on the recommendation of the Commission.

said that importers wished to know under which tariff they were going to be charged.

moved the deletion under item 11, Cheese— of paragraph (b).

said he wished for an explanation from the Minister on cheese (a).

said that he was told that it would not be practicable to accept a definition of the description suggested by the last speaker. Sometimes the manufacturers put fat into cheese which was not butter fat. What they wanted to prevent was the sale of what he might call falsified cheese. That was why the item was in that form—“to which no animal or vegetable fat has been added.”

said there was no doubt that there was cheese imported into this country, which was an important article of food to many people, and which contained no buttermilk whatever. If they were going to prevent the importation of that cheese—cheese which was not made from sweet milk—it was necessary to have a proper definition. He thought that was a matter that the Minister should inquire into. If they were going to tamper with the tariff at all they should first of all have a proper Adulteration Act.

said the Minister had put them in this position—that a man who could not afford local cheese must not be in a position to buy a cheaper form of cheese. To say that a man had to starve or to buy a dearer cheese was ridiculous.

said the presumption was that the Minister wished to eliminate cheap cheese altogether. Private importation of green cheese was very small indeed. Was there any cheese made in the country?

Tons of it.

said that very little of the Colonial cheese was known about. The cheap cheese would not be a profit-making machine for the retailer. The consumer would have to pay more for it as soon as the tax came into operation. The poorer people would then not be able to get any cheese at all. As long as they did not pay the people of the country sufficient money they should be given opportunities of buying cheap food. He hoped the Minister would give that matter his attention. By decreasing the amount of cheese brought into the country from outside they would be giving the retailers a chance of increasing their price.

put the question: That paragraph (b) of item No. 11, “Cheese”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the tariff, and declared the question affirmed.

said that in order to make the tariff consistent, he would move that the duty on mixed coffee be reduced from 3d. to 2d. per lb., thus making the duty the same as that on substitutes for coffee. Imported mixed coffee was perfectly pure, but unfortunately many general dealers in South Africa would mix the coffee as they liked, and the poorer classes would suffer as a consequence.

who supported the amendment, said, that frequently dried acorns were used in the manufacture of mixed coffee in South Africa.

opposed the amendment.

moved that the duty on coal be reduced from 3s. to 1s. per ton of 2,000 lb. He mentioned that during the industrial disturbances on the Rand the Cape Town Council had been forced to import 1,000 tons of coal in order that there should be no risk of the town being deprived of light in the event of South African coal not being available. The difference between the price of the imported and the South African coal on the 1,000 tons was £750, £150 of which represented duty.

said the duty of 3s. per ton would allow Natal coal to compete in Cape Town with the imported coal. The reduction might affect an important colonial industry. Coal was being brought down to Cape Town by train at what he doubted was a paying rate.

said the reduction would not make any difference at all to the consumption of South African coal.

understood that Cape Town was consuming a lot of imported coal for household purposes.

No.

added that if the duty were reduced, the Natal coal mines would be handicapped.

said he thought the object of the tariff was to encourage South African manufacturers, and that raw material should come in free. (Hear, hear.) It was an extraordinary thing to put a duty of 3s. a ton on coal, when coal could be bought at the pit’s head in the Transvaal at from 4s. to 5s. per ton, which was cheaper than it could be bought in England, where the miners were paid decently.

The amendment of the member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Baxter) was negatived.

The amendment of the member for South Peninsula (Mr. Runciman) to reduce the duty on mixed coffee was also negatived.

On item 18, Confectionery,

said they could not go on piling up these duties in the unsystematic way they were doing. In the item in question there were a number of articles on which the duty of 21/2d. per lb., or 25 per cent. ad valorem, would mean an increase in the price to as much as 1s. per lb., and in many instances 9d. per lb., because it was well known that the best chocolates were not made in this country. The same increase in price would apply to preserved ginger, and were they going to increase the cost of this article, of which there was considerable consumption in this country? It simply meant that these better-class goods would not be imported, and the Minister, instead of increasing his revenue by the tax, would lose what he already received. The Minister could be assured that many of the goods mentioned in the item could not be made either in this country or in England, and it would simply stop the sale of them if a duty of 25 per cent. were levied.

said he could not accept what the hon. member for Troyeville had put forward. Hitherto the duty had weighed principally on the cheaper class of goods, while the better articles practically escaped.

said the member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had stated that these goods could not be made in South Africa, but there were firms who were now making this class of goods. Hon. members opposite were always complaining that the effect of these duties was to fall heavily on the poor man, but here they had a case where the better classes of goods were going to bear the largest share of the duty, while the cheaper kind would be paying the lesser share.

said the last speaker was wrong in stating that machinery was being put up to manufacture the better class of article. He might inform the hon. member that these goods were not made by machinery, but by hand. He still maintained that a 25 per cent. ad valorem duty was unreasonable. He paid very little attention to the report of the Trades Commission.

thought the hon. member should not speak so lightly of the work of those gentlemen, who had been appointed by that House to report on the trades and industries of the country. Evidently the member for Troyeville had not read that report.

said he thought it was a pity that the hon. member for Pretoria, District, North, should have brought in the names of the members of the Commission. It was a matter of notoriety that they had all been careful to take care of their own interests, every one of them. What they complained of was that these hon. gentlemen came to the taxpayers to make their profits out of the taxpayers. If they had fought their own battles one would have had more respect for them, than if they came whining to Parliament to increase the contributions of the people, as they did in regard to sugar, and as it was suggested they should do in regard to leather and the like.

His what?

His principles—p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e-s. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the Minister the other day held forth on the question of the cost of living. They now came to the question of the duty on breadstuffs. He was rather surprised that his hon. friend had not carried out his principles, and suggested some reduction in this item. The total duty paid in respect of wheat, etc., last year was £327,000. Today we were importing two-thirds of our breadstuffs into this country. He remembered the time, over 20 years ago, when they had an agitation over this tax on breadstuffs. The promise was made to them then that they were going to produce sufficient wheat in the country. At that time they were actually producing a bigger proportion of the total breadstuffs consumed in this country than they were doing to-day. What was the position in regard to this matter? The tax as it was now was entirely indefensible. The price of wheat in this market to-day was 18s. or 19s. According to the evidence given before the Industries Commission, wheat could be grown in the Transvaal at 10s. One of the witnesses, Mr. Du Toit, gave the figure at 9s. 2d. He (Mr. Jagger) admitted that the cost was higher in the Malmesbury and Caledon districts and in the Koeberg. Why was that? Simply on account of the high cost of land. The price of land in the Caledon district had doubled during the last five years. Again, owing to the continual cropping year after year, there was considerable expenditure on account of manure. Taking these two things into account, the high price of land and the cost of manure, the price worked out at 15s. a bag. As he had said, the price in the market to-day was about 18s. In Australia the cost of labour was higher than it was, say, in the Koeberg district. The cost of wheat in Australia to-day was about 12s. 9d. or 13s. 3d. If they added to that freight, insurance and shipping, to put Australian wheat down here would be about 15s. 6d. or 16s., without any duty. They had had the evidence of farmers in the Transvaal that wheat could be raised there at 10s. per bag.

Surely, in face of that, it was unnecessary to impose these high duties. Whenever this question had been under discussion they had always had the same argument brought forward—“give us this protection, and we shall very soon feed the people.”

You never gave them it.

said that, with this protection, they only produced one-third of what the country required. Let them just look at the vast improvement which had been made in the position of the wheat farmers within the past twenty years. Railways had been carried right into their own districts, and the cost of transport had been enormously reduced, but the consumer had not benefited one iota; in fact, he was worse off. Wheat was no cheaper in that country, and the price was regulated by the price of the imported article and the world prices. The Caledon line, the Malmesbury line, and the Hopefield line did not even pay working expenses, and the Railway Administration had to find the £31,000 deficit. The consumer did not benefit. There was also guano. Taking all these things together, the general consumer was £40,000 worse off, and was getting no cheaper food. He thought that the time had come to review the situation as to these taxes on breadstuffs, and he accordingly moved that the duties under paragraph (a) and (b) be reduced by one-half.

said that he entirely agreed with what the hon. member had said, but his conclusion did not bear out his arguments. If his cogent arguments had shown anything, it was that there should be no duty on foodstuffs whatever.

was understood to say that they were not likely to get the duties off altogether.

You are just as likely to get the whole bun as half. The hon. member moved in item 19, “corn and grain,” to omit sub-items (i) and (ii) under paragraph (a), and said he wanted to know what right hon. members on the Ministerial side of the House had to ask that the wage-earners should pay a fraction of their wages more for bread. He claimed the support of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan), because of what had been stated in the report of the Industries Commission with regard to the importation of wheat. He knew that it would be stated that the wheat must be protected, and that the wheat farmers were doing very badly, but the prices of their land did not bear it out. A curious reason had been given in Malmesbury why there should be extra protection on wheat, because the price of land had risen! The question of taxing foodstuffs did not admit of any argument. Were they to tax the food of the poorest simply to give a few landowners an increased value of their land? The land values at present were sufficient testimony that wheat growing was not an uneconomic proposition in that country. He asked whether they were to assume from the remark made by the hon. member for Troyeville the other day, that this would be a present of 2s. 6d. per 100 lb. to the bakers. He had rather more confidence as to the ultimate destination of that half-crown.

said that the hon. member for Jeppe had quoted from the report of the Commission. If the hon. member had read further he would have found that the Commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase the tax, because the farmer of this country wanted it. He also agreed with what Cobden had said, but they were not in the same position as the time when Cobden spoke. Why was the wheat not grown here? Because the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who had been legislating in the Western Province for some years, had never given the farmer what he wanted. (Laughter.) The Commission, in its report, advocated the abolition of the preferential railway rate and the establishment of duties at the coast so as to cheapen the Cost of living in the interior. That was what would happen if the recommendations of the Commission were Carried out. The Minister had said that they were not going to touch the preferential railway rate, but he (Sir Thomas) asked him to re-consider that statement, because it was a matter of great moment to the people of the interior. Who paid for the railways that were built for the farmers? The man in Cape Town? No. The people who used the railways paid for them. From Cape Town to the Kazerne the cost was 54 pence per 100 lbs. of imported wheat; 20 pence on the South African-grown wheat. Therefore, the consumer in Johannesburg had to pay 35 pence per 100 lbs. more for imported wheat, and he only used the imported article. But being business men they got their wheat through Durban. The rate from Durban was 36 pence per 100 lbs., and if the preferential rate was in force it would be 131/2 pence. The man on the Rand had to pay 22 pence more per 100 lbs. for that wheat because the Cape had put on a preferential railway rate in order, as they said, to protect the farmers down here. People in the interior had to pay 3s. 9d. more on every bag of wheat. The Commission recommended that an extra duty of 2s. per bag, and the reduction of the railway rates, and thus give the man in Johannesburg his food cheaper. He referred to the interview which 600 farmers had in that House with the Prime Minister; but when the farmers came before the Commission they said, “we don’t want that rate; we want a duty on at the coast.” He asked the Minister to re-consider this matter and put on the duty at the coast. The same thing applied to sugar in Natal. The Commission recommended that that preferential rate should be abolished, and that a rate of 1s. 6d. more be put on at the coast, with the result that the consumer inland would pay 1s. less than he was paying at the present time. Wherever railways were used and the preferential rate was in operation those people had to pay. The Cape had diverted the trade from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town through this preferential rate.

He thought that the Minister should take those two matters into consideration. The sugar consumers thought that they were being unduly taxed through preferential railway rates. Why did the railways carry so much locally-grown wheat—it was because they got the preference. Their railways today were carrying far more wheat than they had ever done before, and that was due to the preferential rates which left open the door to a lot of humbugging. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) concerning Colonial biscuits, if he had paid a visit to the industrial exhibition he would have seen Colonial biscuits which would bear comparison with those from any other part of the world.

said he had received a letter from a nephew of his who was farming in Canada and had been there for many years. He quoted a sentence from this letter to the effect that the worst day’s work the farmers of South Africa would ever do would be to adopt protection. He (Dr. Watkins) advised South African farmers to take that warning.

said that that very question had been responsible for revolts and revolutions in other countries. It was a matter the House should hesitate about. The Customs duties on grain in 1913 amounted to £327,000. How long did the Minister think it would take the country to produce sufficient wheat to overtake that amount? The proposed tax meant an addition of 1s. per week per family. When they went to their employers and asked for 1s. rise in their wages what would happen? He would like to put that case to the farmers. Of course it was a simple thing to ask the people to pay an additional impost of 1s. a week, but where was it to come from?

said that now was the time for those on the Labour benches to show the way. If the duty were reduced the consumer would derive no benefit.

said he was beginning to think that the Minister of Finance was a bit of a political wag, for the other day the Minister introduced the closure for the purpose of shortening discussion, and now he introduced the whole of the tariff for the purposes of lengthening discussion. (Laughter.) The Minister had raised discussion by devoting eight pages of the Votes and Proceedings to the whole of the tariff, which it was not the intention of the Government to alter. (Opposition cheers.) The unbusinesslike methods of the Minister had raised a lengthy discussion. He was sorry the hon. member for Caps Town, Central had brought up this matter— (Ministerial cheers)—because he would cause a demand in the country to depart from the moderate tariff now existing. He would also do a very dangerous thing in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan), who had the idea that if the duty on wheat were decreased the price of bread at Johannesburg would be lower. The hon. member had an idea that in a country with enormous distances if they did away with the differential railway rates they were not going to have the rate on imported articles reduced, but that the man in Natal would have to pay the increase. What should be the object of this country? It should, as far as possible, be to increase the production of articles which it was capable of producing, and then to encourage their consumption at the outlying portions of the Union. If they did not do that the result might be, for instance, that although Malmesbury wheat could be grown as cheaply as it could be imported at Delagoa Bay or Durban without any duty, owing to the long distance over which the Colonial wheat had to pass the imported article would knock the South African product out. That was not a system which South Africa should lightly embank upon Whether the wheat was grown in the conquered territory or the Malmesbury district, all things being equal, they should devise a railway system whereby the wheat could be consumed throughout the length and breadth of the Union. If the South African wheat was not given a cheap railway rate, imported wheat would displace it. It should be the duty of every country to do all it possibly could to feed itself. What would be our position if we had great disturbances throughout the world, and our food supply was cut off? The time was not very far distant when, with the new descriptions of wheat now obtainable, South Africa would be able to grow sufficient wheat for its own consumption. He remembered the time when we could not raise enough oats for our own purposes, but now we exported a considerable quantity of oats. He thought the time would come when we should be able to do that with wheat as well. He would say to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central: “If you begin to deal with the tariff as a whole, there will be a strong agitation, which I have always opposed, for increasing the duty.” Therefore he thought the hon. member would be well advised not to press proposals of that sort.

strongly objected to the House being hurried over these matters, because it was not concerned as to the rapidity with which the Minister transacted his business, but with what his policy really was. No more important subject could be debated than whether the food of the country should be taxed merely for the benefit of the few. What he wanted to put before the House was that the ultimate result of taxing grain was to increase the value of land. But if the Minister wanted to raise revenue or stimulate production, he would advise him to put a tax on land values. That would be a much surer way of developing the resources of the country. If the amendment were carried it would mean that something like £250,000 would have to be found. Well, the Minister could easily find that. Let him scrap the Bill which he brought in that afternoon and bring in a real land tax, arid that would do more than the present proposals. Then who were the people that would profit by the present tax? They were the people who had plenty of money to pay for the bread they wanted. He maintained they had no business to impose a tax which was going to make by one shade the cost of living dearer.

said the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) would find Western Province farmers the hardest worked farmers in the world, and he might inform members on the cross benches that they never worked so hard in their lives. (Hear, hear.) There was no eight hours day; they were up before daylight and remained at it until after it was dark.

said it was never suggested that grain farmers were not hard workers. But what was the value of the land in the grain districts, and was it not the gradual increase in the duty that was creating that value? The very fact that the price of land stood as high as it did showed that grain growing was a paying industry.

said the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had talked about the high price of land in the Malmesbury district. Did he know that the average price of wheat-growing lands in America was £11 per acre? The price of land in the Malmesbury district was not more than £3 per acre, so it was ridiculous to talk about the high price of land.

asked why the Malmesbury farmers had not put before the Trades and Industries Commission the fact that the price of land was so high that an extra tax was required to make grain growing pay?

replied that he was not defending the question at all, but he could not see how they could ask the Minister to give up the big sum of money which the tax involved. He thought the Minister of Finance was unfortunate in adopting the course he had done. The question of further taxation was one which should have been brought in earlier in the session and not left to be decided at short notice. Under the present circumstances he thought the Minister, instead of selecting a few articles, should have imposed a super tax on all Customs, say, of 6d. on every £ raised. The present proposals, he maintained, were not going to produce any-thing thing nor satisfy anybody. At the same time he could not support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), as the object was to raise money and not to frame a scientific tariff.

said he was surprised at the attitude of hon. members on the cross-benches. The amendment to remove the duty on wheat and grain showed how little they knew of the conditions of the country. These hon. members did not seem to realise that if the farmer prospered the workman also prospered. If they knew what farmers had to go through they would, instead of trying to remove the duty, give them more protection. Proceeding, Mr. De Beer urged the acceptance of the recommendations of the Industries Commission, by removing the preferential rates on the railway and to increase the import duty by 2s. per bag, which he said would prove beneficial to the country and yield a bigger revenue.

said farmers should be given a chance, and for that reason he urged that they should be afforded protection by means of tariffs at the coast. The leader of the Labour Party had said two years ago that hay and corn should be protected, because the farmer could not exist without it. Now he wanted to abolish all protection. The electors would take careful note of the hon. member’s remarks.

said he was not at all sure that the alleged wheat farmers deserved any protection at all. He went on to make references based on the report of the Industries Commission, and argued that whilst there was no reason at all for a protective duty on wheat there were many reasons why wheat and flour should be brought into this country free. The farmers were asking for a profit of nothing lower than 200 per cent. They were asking for a great deal too much. The cost of producing a ton of wheat in the Transvaal was £3 6s. 8d., and the average cost of a ton of wheat landed here was £8 12s. 8d. Taking those figures they found that the farmers who produced that wheat had a handicap in their favour of £5 6s. for every ton. The average price in Caledon was 15s. a bag. At Malmesbury it was 17s. The average of those two being 16s. a bag. They told the Commission if they could only get from 18s. to 21s. a bag they would be satisfied, and not only that, but they would need no protection at all. If they could get good wheat, went on Mr. Haggar, from 18s. to 20s. a bag he was sure they could get flour very much cheaper than what they got it at the present time, but they were not getting it at that. In the Transvaal it cost 8s. they were told to produce a bag of wheat on the dry land, and the man who produced that got 12s. 6d. a bag—a profit of 4s. 6d. Yet the farmers here at Caledon and Malmesbury, if they can get from 3s. to 5s. profit, will be satisfied. They were told that in the Transvaal 4s. 6d. was a very fair profit. That was just as much as the Australian farmer got, and our farmers should be satisfied, and should not come to that House to attack the people’s bread as they did. They were told that the cost of land was a very serious item. Nature was really waiting on the farmer in this country, and he should regard himself as being a favoured individual. The question of the cost of living was one of the most serious we had got to deal with in this country. We were paying 150 per cent. more for our bread than we ought to pay.

This valuable and infallible report told them that the cost of living was our most serious problem. What did the Commission give as the reason? “The Commissions is satisfied that living is much too expensive throughout the Union and the following are the contributory causes. ” The first cause of the cost of living in this country, they were told, was the undeveloped state of agriculture generally. This country did not produce as much wheat as it ought to do. It did not produce simply for want of the will and because the handsome profits were not sufficiently handsome to induce land-owners to produce wheat. If the land-owners would not produce sufficiently, then the Government should resume the land. We were going to have the 40’s of England over again. The first step the Government should take to prevent that was to see that our people should have the food that they required at the lowest possible price consistent with honesty and fairplay. He asked the Minister to take the lead and say that he would not please a few rich men in order to starve the rest of the community.

said it appeared to him that some hon. members lost sight of the fact that if the farming industry was not protected, it would be unable to provide food for the people now depending on them. It was no use always referring to Australia and Canada here. Hon. members forgot that those countries not only provided for themselves, but also export the products. That was what they wanted to achieve in South Africa as well, and unless proper protection was afforded. South Africa would never be able to achieve that object. For that purpose it was essential to place a duty on imported wheat, so as to enable farmers to compete with the imported article. Some hon. members were continually urging the necessity of settling people on the country. What people would go on the land if they knew that they would be unable to compete with oversea producers in this country? He therefore wished the Minister would impose a sound tax on imported wheat. According to the Labour members food ought not to be taxed, because it pressed heavily on the working-men. But if the farmer was not protected he could not produce the food and would be compelled to abandon his farm.

appealed to the House to curtail the discussion as much as possible. A good deal of work had to be got through and he thought that members could help a good deal by curtailing their remarks. There was no desire to interfere with the rights of any member, but if they went on in this way the consideration of these proposals would not be concluded this week.

said that this was a matter of very great importance, and one that concerned everybody in the State. The hon. member for Ermelo had asked how farmers in this country were going to get on if they were not protected. He (Mr. Jagger) would like to ask how did the wool farmer get on? He had got no protection, and he had to compete in the open market with wool produced in other countries. The hon. member for Pretoria District, North, had talked about not having given sufficient protection to the farmer in the past, or, he said, he would have produced more wheat. If that were so, how was it that land had doubled in price in some of the wheatgrowing districts during the past few years? He wanted to deal particularly with a matter which the hon. member (Sir T. M. Cullinan) was extremely fond of trotting out in this House, viz., the preferential railway rates. Their abolition had been strongly called for in the past, but still they were maintained, and he considered they would be maintained in one form or another practically for all time. Here in the Western Province we had got, perhaps, the best agricultural district in the whole of South Africa; but we were situated at the shank end of the country, and more distant from the big consuming centres, like Kimberley and Johannesburg, than any other part of South Africa. Porterville-road, which was the nearest point in the Western Province for the despatch of grain to Johannesburg, was 933 miles distant from Johannesburg, while Durban was 482 miles distant from Johannesburg. How were they going to get over that distance? If they were going to have the same rate per ton per mile from Durban to Johannesburg as from Cape Town or Porterville-road to Johannesburg, Durban was in it every time, and the imported stuff, with the reduced mileage, was going to be landed in Johannesburg cheaper than Western Province stuff. They had two solutions before them. They could either put on a very heavy protective tariff, or give what was called here a preferential rate, which he preferred to call a special rate. Exactly the same thing happened with regard to maize sent from the North, and also with regard to coal. The same principle was adopted by any commercially-managed railway in the world. It was absolutely necessary to give special rates for agricultural produce, because they could not transfer the land; the land was there, the produce was there, and it had to be placed in the consuming centre. Factories might be removed to the consuming centres, but they could not transfer the land, and, therefore, if they were going to bring this produce to the big consuming centres, they must be given special rates. If they adopted the suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan), it might be some protection, and would be, in fact; but down there there was not the slightest doubt that that part of the country would rue it if these special rates were done away with.

said he wanted to point out that now they had thrown at them the whole of their Customs tariff, instead of discussing the items which had beer altered. Parliament did not sit to re-authorise taxes already imposed.

said that he did not think any good purpose would be served by following that line.

said that they were now in June, and many of them wanted to get on with the business of the House. (Hear, hear.) They were willing to sit there and do effective work. They did not want to sit there and listen to debates which meant nothing.

said that, surely, something like that they were at present discussing was most important. Surely there was just a trifle of maladroitness about that. If the Government in their wisdom put the whole of the Customs Tariff before the Committee, were hon. members who held strong views on certain of its items going to sit silent? They were quite prepared to sit until September, if necessary.

asked the hon. member to keep to the subject before the Committee.

said that, with due respect to the Chairman, he was simply replying to something the Prime Minister had said. If the Prime Minister was in order, he thought he was, too.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), did not seem to have grasped his (Sir T. M. Cullinan’s) figures. The question was a most momentous one for those inland. From Cape Town to Kazerne was—

The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing railway rates at a later stage.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, dealt with it.

That was in reply to the hon. member. I must put a stop to this now. (Hear, hear.)

Sir T. M. CULLINAN went on to say that eventually they would come to the position in Canada. There they exported wheat, and so the duty did not count. The position that they took up was that the imposition of the duty was to increase production of wheat in the Union.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN then put the question that sub-items (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) under item No. 19. “Corn and Grain, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the tariff, and declared that the “ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—72.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christiaan Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

Noes—14.

Andrews, William Henry

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Emile Nathan and W. Duncan Baxter, tellers.

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

said they had made themselves slightly ridiculous. If corn and grain had been thrown out from the rated list it would have gone into the ad valorem list, and at 15 per cent, ad valorem the duty on corn came out at 1s. 2d.

The item is finished with.

moved that the duty on eggs be 2d. per doz. and on crystallised and liquid eggs 6d. per lb. The mover said that estimating that eight eggs went to 1 lb., a duty of 1d. per lb. would bring in £10,400, and that would be an inducement to people to send out small ones and the Government would lose money, but by adopting his proposal he estimated that the duty would produce about £14,000.

Do I understand that eight eggs go to the lb.?

That is the normal egg, but we shall very soon be getting them ten to the lb. if the Government’s proposal is adopted.

The right hon. gentleman admits there will be an increase in taxation under his proposal.

A small one. (Laughter.) I thought the Minister was out to make money.

I cannot accept the amendment.

The item was passed.

moved the omission of the item. The Minister, he said, seemed to have come to the conclusion that the people dealing in these films were making a fortune, but as a matter of fact they were not making huge profits at all. Very heavy losses had been made in South Africa by the film suppliers. During the two years ending May, 1915, there was a number of competitive agencies, and between them they lost £30,000. A new concern had paid 5 per cent, for a half year’s trading, so it was making a very good business profit, but no more. It must be remembered that the Cape Province bioscopes were already paying an amusement tax, varying from £20 to £15 per year. The bioscope displays were most instructive and of great educational value. The hon. member for Victoria West laughed, but he (Mr. Alexander) supposed the right hon. gentleman had never ventured inside one of these places.

Never. (Laughter.)

said the Minister was proposing to tax the poor man’s pleasure. Leading actors and actresses were not ashamed to act for the bioscope companies. One should not poke fun at bioscopes until one had seen them. He hoped the right hon. member would not say anything more on the subject until he went to a bioscope show under his (Mr. Alexander’s) guidance. (Laughter.) The tax would inflict a great hardship on the poor man. But the Minister did not take 6d. extra revenue from the theatres. What justification was there for taxing the poor man’s entertainment and allowing the rich man’s to go free? (Cheers.) Undoubtedly they were going to kill the smaller bioscopes. The large bioscopes in the towns might be able to struggle through, but the smaller country bioscopes would have to be closed up under the weight of that taxation. Even with regard to the town bioscopes it would be a failure. An experiment was tried in Durban as soon as the tax became known. There they increased the price on Saturday nights, and found that the attendance dropped immediately from 100 to 65 per cent. The bioscope was a poor man’s entertainment, and with increased prices many would be unable to afford to go to them, and therefore it would be impossible to get the revenue anticipated when a number of the bioscopes had to close down altogether. He thought this was a very important matter indeed, and he felt it his duty to protest against the tax.

There was another point of view. Some of those pictures thrown on the screen on the bioscopes were really equivalent to newspapers. There was, for instance, Pathe’s Gazette and the Gaumont Graphic. Those were simply records of important public events which had taken place in various parts of the world. There was to be a tax on those. Proceeding, Mr. Alexander said that if the Minister would study the police reports of other countries—he did not know that there had been any here —he would find that it was the universal testimony that the bioscopes had had a most sobering effect upon the population. The Chief of Police of Liverpool reported that the number of night police had been reduced to one-half, a circumstance arising out of the popularity of the bioscope, because people spent their time there instead of going to saloons. That, of course, would not be favourable to those who were interested in the wine industry—(laughter)—but they must look at that matter from the point of view of the benefit of the country. There could be no doubt that the bioscopes had resulted in a diminution of crime and of intoxication in all large towns. If the hon. Minister were to carry this proposal to its logical conclusion he would put a poll tax on actors and actresses who came touring this country. That proposal would have the effect of taxing them when they came as films, and the logical outcome would be to tax them in person. If that tax was to be introduced at all there should be a general entertainment tax upon all forms of entertainment. Seeing that the revenue to be derived from that tax was only £10,000, it should be considerably reduced when the cost of collecting was deducted, he submitted that it was hardly worth while, and he trusted the hon. Minister would give the matter the consideration it deserved, so that it would be unnecessary for many bioscopes in different parts of the country to close down, and incidentally increase unemployment.

hoped that the Minister would seriously consider the request of the last speaker. He (Mr. Botha) also had a partiality for bioscopes, and thought they did a great deal of good. As the Prime Minister would see if he would visit them in any of the little places in South Africa on a Saturday night, when they were filled with people from the country. Why had the Minister selected the poor man’s entertainment for that special taxation? He (the speaker) objected to that, and also on the ground that the tax would enable monopolies to grow stronger still. At the present moment the films were imported by a very few companies, and by making a heavy tax like that it would be impossible for one who had not a large capital to import films at all. In that way they would be placing the bioscopes throughout the country at the mercy of those monopolies. If his hon. friend persisted in keeping on that tax he should try to provide some other form, so that it would not bear so heavily on the smaller bioscopes.

said that several hon. members were anxious to hear what he had to say on that matter. The bioscope people came to see him with a large deputation to discuss their interests. He discussed the matter with them very fully, and hoped he had convinced them that their fears regarding his proposal were largely illusory. There might have been some difficulty in passing off the small liability placed upon them to the lessees, but he had promised them, and he hoped to carry out the promise in the next few days, that he would amend the Bill so as to enable them to pass off their liabilities.

Will not the lessees pass on the liability to the public?

To some extent It will partly be borne by the bioscope people, partly by the lessees, and partly by the long-suffering public. They will not be much inconvenienced.

said they were taxing the food of the people, the clothing, boots and shoes, in fact every blessed thing a man used, and now they were going to tax his amusements. Was there nothing else his hon. friend could tax? It was going to have the effect pointed out by the hon. member for Bloemfontein. It was going to form a trust. There was a certain amount of competition at the present time with regard to the cheaper films, but the duty would apply far harder on them than on the better class films, and the result would be it would drive the whole thing into the hands of one person.

said the hon. Minister had not satisfied the people from the North as he (the speaker) had reason to know. He entirely agreed with everything the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had said, and he would certainly vote in favour of doing away with that tax altogether.

asked if it was the intention of the Minister to tax other forms of amusements. The bioscope was a poor man’s amusement and should not have been singled out. Was it the intention of the Minister to tax theatres circuses, merry-go-rounds, etc., if there was to be a tax that was the only reasonable course.

said that there would be an increase of 50 per cent. admission to the public. He had that at first hand. This tax was another illustration of the solicitude of the hon. Minister for the working-classes. He was getting at them all the time. He (the speaker) was against a tax at all, and he was particularly against it in the form in which it was introduced into the Committee. If it were an ad valorem tax it would be different entirely. It might be that some people in this country would wish to see certain incidents which would not be altogether pleasant to the powers that be. If they had a trust which controlled all the bioscopes in South Africa they could see that incidents of this kind were never shown on a bioscope in this country, without any law or anything of that kind. Such a thing had happened to his knowledge. At private expense a film had been produced of the working of a particular enterprise, and this film was forbidden to be shown on the bioscopes belonging to the trust. From the point of view of an unofficial censorship being, thus set up, he was strongly opposed to this tax.

said there was no doubt about it that this was a most odious tax on a most popular form of entertainment. They all knew that when there was a great trust in charge of a matter like this the taxation would invariably be passed on to the consumers, who, in this instance, were the people who patronised these entertainments. He strongly appealed to the Minister to withdraw this tax.

said he held in his hand a telegram from the bioscope proprietors at Port Elizabeth in opposition to this tax. Its effect would not be so bad as the hon. member for Middelburg made out the other night, but on the ordinary up-country bioscopes it would mean a tax of about 15s. a night. In Durban the price was raised to 1s., although not more than 1/2d. per head need have been charged. In many up-country towns the, bioscope was the only form of entertainment, and he would put it to the Minister whether, considering the small amount of revenue that the tax would produce, it was really worth while pressing for its imposition.

said he thought this was the most unpopular tax he had ever heard of. He had had letters from Pietermaritzburg, from the poorer classes of people, complaining very bitterly about this tax.

said he did not think the hon. member for Queen’s Town had taken the trouble to calculate the actual cost this tax would mean to any bioscope in the country per night. The hon. member for Three Rivers was quite wrong when he talked about 12s. 6d. It worked out more nearly to 1s. per night. (Dissent.) It had been worked put by the Government on information supplied by those very people who ran bioscopes.

Give us the figures.

It is absurd.

I have not got the figures before me now, but I can assure the hon. member that the Government have gone to the trouble to have it worked out. The information is on record, and if the hon. member wants it he can get it at the Treasury.

said he knew the hon. member who had just spoken was usually very fair. He believed it was a fact that on new films this little tax amounted to no less than 15 per cent. duty on bioscopes. On the cheaper films, which wore imported and used by the people who were fighting a big trust, the duty was 30 per cent. or 40 per cent, ad valorem. Was that fair? They would see that bioscopes were rated up from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. The result of this tax would be to close down a lot of the bioscopes. It was not a fair thing to tax one particular amusement and leave the others free.

said that he also was against this tax. There were a large number of small halls where bioscope shows were held in the country which had a hard struggle for existence. In these places second-hand films were shown, and there was no doubt that this tax would fall very heavily in the long run on second-hand films. He knew from actual knowledge that no great profits had been made by bioscope businesses. In his opinion these people should have a bonus instead of having a tax placed upon them. What had happened before these entertainments had come? They had seen boys of 18 and 19 years of age in the bars, who now attended bioscopes. The hon. member also spoke of the educational value of films which depicted industries in other countries, and thought that bioscope businesses might even be given a grant for showing these films.

said that some years ago the hours of public houses had been extended in Cape Town, and it had been thought that there would be an increase of drunkenness as a result; but that had not happened. It was ascribed as due to the influence of the bioscopes, which people attended, instead of frequenting public houses. That was a concrete case. Taking it all round, he said the bioscope had an educative influence, and for that reason he supported his hon. friend (Mr. Alexander).

said that he did not think the Minister had given that matter careful consideration. He had gone to Fisher’s bioscope on Saturday afternoon, and found it attended by 400 or 500 children, and had been told that that was the usual thing on Saturday afternoons there. He also believed that the bioscope was an educative medium, and that it ought not to be taxed; and agreed with what the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) had said about its effect on young men.

said that the Minister might differentiate between films which were of an educational character and those which were purely of a romantic character. Such films as actually recorded the happenings of life might, at all events, be put on the free list.

said that he thought the Minister might relent somewhat seeing the views which had been expressed by so many hon. members. The hon. member spoke of the benefit which bioscopes were to small places, and of the struggle for existence of the proprietors. He thought it was too paltry and too undignified for the Government to get revenue from that sort of thing, and he thought the next thing the Government would do was to tax churches and schools.

also spoke against the imposition of that duty on bioscope films

said that he thought the Minister of Finance owed the House some reply. The bioscope was a great help in propagating useful knowledge throughout the country, not only from an educational point of view, but also from a health point of view. The life history of a fly which had been shown on the bioscopes had had a marvellous effect on the people of the country in connection with the campaign of “swat that fly!”

said that the figures given by the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Becker) were entirely incorrect. The length of film used at an average performance was about 6,500 feet. At 5s. per 100 feet that worked out at £16 5s., but, of course, the film went on circuit, and even if they divided that amongst 40 people at the very outside, that made it work out at 8s. per night, and not the 1s. mentioned by the hon. member for Ladismith. The whole of the Union was against that proposed tax, and meetings which had been held in various parts of the country had expressed the opinion that that was an unjust tax. Theatrical companies got special rates on the railways because the Minister no doubt liked to see them up-country, but these bioscope films seemed to have roused the wrath of the Minister.

put the question that Item No. 22, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the tariff, and declared that the “ayes” had it.

On a point of order, sir, the total prohibition having been moved, can a reduction be proposed?

No.

moved the omission of item 29, Leather, adulterated or loaded, 6d. per lb. He pointed out that, under the old tariff, the duty on adulterated or loaded leather was 15 per cent. The new duty was so heavy that no adulterated leather would be imported, but it would be used for the making of boots and shoes overseas, but not in this country. The idea was to keep out cheap leather.

Shame.

said there was no law to prevent Colonial tanners making adulterated leather, and that would be done, as there would be a demand for it, which they would supply. (Hear, hear.)

said it had been represented to him that the prohibition of the importation of adulterated leather would give an advantage to Colonial leather manufacturers, who also made boots, whereas the Colonial boot manufacturers who had no tanneries would not be able to utilise adulterated leather.

The point will be met by an Adulteration Act.

When are we going to have that?

At this late stage of the session it is impossible to consider that question. (Laughter.) It is very seriously called for, not only in regard to this, but in regard to very many other important matters, but it will have to stand over. (Laughter.) I am sure my hon. friend does not use adulterated leather. I think it is quite a proper tax to prevent the importation of undesirable leather.

Suppose they make adulterated leather here?

That is a matter for the Adulteration Act.

said the duty would compel South African manufacturers to use pure leather, while their oversea competitors would be free to use adulterated leather. He suggested the inclusion of the words, “or manufacturers of loaded leather.” Every person would then be on an equal footing. It would, ensure a purer quality, and would meet the whole thing. They could get slippers at 1s. 4d. a pair in England, possibly cheaper. Those things must be made up of loaded leather.

They are made up of brown paper.

Well, they call it leather anyhow. He hoped the Minister would favourably consider the amendment.

asked the Minister of Finance if the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers would increase taxation.

answered in the affirmative.

thought it would reduce the tariff on boots and shoes, for 6d. a lb. would be a reduction on 25 per cent.

The Minister of Finance says it means increased taxation.

I doubt it.

said he saw that under item 29 a heavy tax was imposed on rifles, which was a proposition which he did not think to the interest of the country. He agreed with the taxation of shot-guns, as they were chiefly used for purposes of sport, but suggested the deletion of the word “firearms” in section (a).

referred to the answer of the Minister of Finance to his question, and said it seemed to him to amount to that they should sanction the matter at present, and in the future an Adulteration Act would be introduced so that those people would not suffer, but in the interval of one or two years some of them may be ruined by unfair competition, which the hon. Minister would admit would take place until the Adulteration Act came in.

said he could go back to the time when tanning in Port Elizabeth was flourishing, but many firms had been frozen out by leather coming from overseas. It had been stated that they could not manufacture leather enough in this country, but the view of the tanners was different. He mentioned a number of firms who were capable of dealing with a considerably larger number of hides than they were turning out at present. He added that he sometimes thought we were apt to have an idea that everything was to be got from oversea. Personally he believed that it was possible to get quite as good an article in South Africa as could be got from oversea.

put the question that item 29, proposed by Mr. Jagger to be deleted, should remain, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—56.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl. Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christiaan Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

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

Noes—20.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Smartt, Thomas William

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Emile Nathan and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

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

said that he wished to refer to item 33.

said that, before that was dealt with, he wished to refer to item 32, condensed milk, (a) full cream, 5s. 2d. per 100 lb. He desired to move that this be deleted. Condensed milk was an article of food which was largely used, especially by the poor people in this country.

The amendment was negatived.

said he had no objection if only wealthy people who owned motor-cars had to pay that tax, but it struck at an important industry, and the time would come when farmers would have to depend far more on the motor industry than they did at present. The General Manager of Railways had drawn attention to the question of using motor traction on the roads instead of building these branch lines. He thought that the Minister had not given that proposal good consideration, but had jumped at it without considering how it affected the industries of the country.

said that he wanted to support the hon. member. He would move, as an amendment, that motor spirit used for agricultural or industrial purposes should come in free. The matter was of importance in farming, particularly for pumping water in arid districts.

The amendment was declared negatived, on the voices.

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

Ayes—16.

Baxter, William Duncan

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Hewat, John

Jagger, John William

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Runciman, William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Emile Nathan and Morris Alexander, tellers.

Noes—53.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr. Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

moved that the duty be reduced to 2d. per gallon. The Minister of Finance had laid it down that he was going to assist manufacturers, but instead of doing that he was going to take £10,000 out of their pockets in the shape of duty on lubricating oils, which were chiefly used by manufacturers. It was an extraordinary proposal.

The motion was negatived, and the item was agreed to.

moved the reduction of the duty on candy, loaf, castor, icing and cube sugar from 5s. to 2s. 6d. per 100 lbs., and other kinds, including golden and maple syrup, molasses, saccharum, glucose and treacle, from 3s. 6d. to 1s. 9d. per 100 lbs. The Natal sugar industry, Mr. Jagger remarked, was 50 years of age and ought to be able to stand on its own legs by this time. He drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that 4,600 tons of sugar from Portuguese East Africa were admitted into the Transvaal free of duty.

said that the duty the Minister proposed on sugar was not very high when compared with that of other countries. Natal was suffering under great disadvantage by having to compete with Delagoa Bay under the Mozambique Treaty, which allowed sugar to come in free. That treaty would remain for six years. It was impossible to tell what would happen between now and then. He hoped the House would not agree to the reduction.

referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria County regarding a bounty in Australia, and said that that was introduced so as to induce the sugar growers and crushers to employ white labour, and it had accomplished its object. When there was a bounty given for white labour to be employed white labour began to be employed. Practically the entire sugar industry of Queensland was carried on by white labour. That was an object they ought to try and achieve here in this country, and he would commend that to the hon. Minister. He hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would press his amendment. There was an unfortunate callousness on the part of certain hon. members on the Government side of the House regarding the interest of their poorer brethren. Hon. members seemed to be unconcerned as to how much it cost a large number of poor people in this country to live.

said it was quite true that in Australia they employed white labour in the sugar industry, but his last information was that men were getting 22s. 6d. a week.

Oh, no. The unskilled labourer in Australia gets a minimum of 8s. a day.

moved, in item 46, tea, to delete “(a) in packets or tins, not exceeding 10 lb. each in weight, 5d. per lb.” He said that, on visiting a friend’s house in Cape Town on Saturday night, he found that on tea, for which they usually paid 1s. 10d., the price had gone up to 2s. 1d. That was clear proof that this tax was going to cost 2d. per lb. to the consumer, over and above the additional 1d. duty which was being levied. This had occurred even in Cape Town, where the penny was current. For what purpose was this tax being levied? Was it going to help any industry in this country or any individual, or going to create any new employment? The people for whom it was intended to create new employment would not benefit in the least. It was not going to help the packing industry which it was intended to set up in this country. He appealed to the Minister to meet them in this matter.

said that it was purely a tax on the poorer people, because the richer people get tea by boxes. It simply meant £5,000 taken out of the pockets of the working people.

The amendment was negatived.

said he would like some statement from the Minister of Agriculture. There was no doubt that the position of the tobacco industry in that country, as had been pointed out the other day, was a serious one. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to deal, at an early date, with the question of the adulteration of tobacco? If the question was dealt with it would be a help to the tobacco industry of that country. On cigarettes there was a duty of 5s. per lb., and in addition 15 per cent. ad valorem, but he understood that all material used in the manufacture of cigarettes in that country had to pay 25 per cent., whereas imported material came in assorted packages which did not, he was informed, pay duty. The tobacco industry was largely getting into the hands of a monopoly and of companies which were practically able to control the whole of it. In his constituency, some three years ago, there was a very successful tobacco manufacturing industry, but unfortunately it was bought by the United Tobacco Co., and the people, who were inclined to be delighted at the sale, were advised to sow tobacco on a large scale. They did so, but the result was that there was practically no sale for their product. It might be that that was due to over-production.

No.

Trusts.

said that he was inclined to think that a large amount of the tobacco grown here was used in the making of cigarettes, which were sold on the basis of an import duty of 3s. 6d. per 1b., and that the growers were not getting their share of that amount.

No.

said about a million pounds of unmanufactured tobacco were imported from oversea. Another million was imported from Rhodesia, but a large portion of the latter went back to Rhodesia in the shape of cigarettes. Then 311,000 1b. were imported in made cigarettes. The cigarettes manufactured in the Union were supposed to take up 2,000,000 1b. He thought it would be perfectly fair to place a small Excise on tobacco grown in the Union, and also on imported tobacco. If an extra ½d. were put on the imported cigarette, means would be devised of curing the South African tobacco more satisfactorily, and the State would be able to devote money for the carrying out of experiments, and thus improve the quality of our own tobacco. If they could grow 6,000 or 10,000 lb. of tobacco in this country suitable for the manufacture of Turkish cigarettes, then it would be quite possible, by judicious assistance given by the Government in the direction of instructions, that they would be able to grow a great deal more. There was also an amount of adulteration going on which was not allowed in England. He would be glad if the Government would do something in connection with that industry. If they did not, it would practically disappear —to the great disadvantage of the tobacco manufacturers themselves, because if it disappeared they would have practically to import all their materials. If the Government was not able to do anything this session, he hoped the Minister of Agriculture would come down next session with a proposal to deal with the industry, and also to deal with that matter of adulteration.

pointed out that the Government was already spending £14,000 on the technical side of the tobacco industry, altogether about twenty officials being employed in it. The value of unmanufactured tobacco imported last year was £44,200, on which duty amounting to £93,000 was paid, equal to 216 per cent. One would have thought that that was sufficient. The unmanufactured tobacco that now came in was largely used for blending purposes and for wrapping cigars. By putting on this extra duty they would in some degree handicap the Colonial industry and make cigarettes and cigars dearer. If they had put the duty on the manufactured article he thought they would have done more good.

asked whether he understood the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to advocate that the Government should incur further expenditure in connection with the tobacco division of the Agricultural Department?

said that what he had suggested was the policy he had always advocated, i.e., putting an Excise on the article itself for the purpose of getting into the hands of the Government funds to develop the industry.

said that he thought they were discussing methods by which the Government might raise revenue. They had had a new doctrine expounded, that where ever revenue was raised it must be returned to that source.

said that the question of adulteration presented very serious difficulties in regard to tobacco. He believed his hon. friend was considering the introduction of an Adulteration Bill next session, and the question of tobacco might be considered in that connection. He had heard both sides of the question, and the matter would require grave consideration. The unmanufactured tobacco which came in was almost entirely in connection with cigarettes, and a certain percentage—he would not say how small because the hon. member would blush if he did—was South African tobacco. It was almost entirely foreign stuff.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance were agreed to.

Class one, as amended, was agreed to.

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