from A. S. Pienaar, praying that her good service allowance be allowed to come under the scale fixed by Proclamation No. 286 of 1896.

from J. N. Heckhuysen, who was in the service of the late South African Republic, for arrear salary.

Papers relating to land grants Nos. 68 to 70.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

asked the Minister of Finance what were the maximum and minimum amounts owing to the Land Bank during the year 1913 by the following co-operative societies, viz., Bethal Landbouw Kooperatieve Vereniging, Centraal Westelijk Kooperatieve Landbouw Vereniging, Hoogeveld Eendracht Boeren Kooperatieve Vereniging, Lichtenburg Kooperatieve Landbouw Vereniging, Middelburg Landbouwers Kooperatieve Vereniging and Standerton Kooperatieve Boeren Vereniging respectively?

replied: The reply to the hon. member’s question is as follows:

Bethal Landbouw Kooperatieve Vereniging: Maximum amount, £64,926 15s. 8d.; minimum amount, £43,460 6s. 4d.

Centraal Westelijk Kooperatieve Landbouw Vereniging: Maximum amount, £24,829; minimum amount, £9,374 10s.

Hoogeveld Eendracht Boeren Kooperative Vereniging: Maximum amount, £35,793 8s. 1d.; minimum amount, £10,000. Lichtenburg Kooperatieve Landbouw Vereniging: Maximum amount, £27,441 17s. 9d.; minimum amount, £24,704 8s. 4d.

Middelburg Landbouwers Kooperatieve Vereniging: Maximum amount, £46,929 9s. 7d.; minimum amount, £23,000.

Standerton Kooperatieve Boeren Vereniging: Maximum amount, £26,523 1s. 8d; minimum amount, £24,685 6s. 3d.

had given notice to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours what was the number of hours worked overtime and what were the total amounts paid for overtime to (a) railway employees and (b) harbour employees in each Province for the year ending 31st December, 1913, and also for the four months ending 30th April, 1914?

The question dropped.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he can give an estimate of the average train hours per week which will be wasted in the crossing of trains on the new single line deviation between Estcourt and Mooi River, on the Natal Main Line, and what is the estimated cost of such delays; and (2) would not all such delays be obviated by the retention for up-traffic of the existing main line between these points?

replied: (1) The time occupied in crossings in dealing with the present traffic over the new line will approximate 72 hours weekly. Any estimate of cost would be purely hypothetical, but it may be taken, roughly, at, say, £15 per week. (2) Yes; but this would not compensate for the reduced load which could be taken, the time which would be occupied in breaking up trains at Mooi River on account of the heavy up-grades, and the cost of banking up trains over the old section between Mooi River and Estcourt. In other words, such an arrangement as that indicated by the hon. member would debar the Administration from taking full advantage of the saving in haulage power which the deviation was specially designed to effect.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the Government will give to members of the Natal Police and Prisons Service, upon discharge, the gratuity payable under article 5 of Natal Government Notice No. 383 of 1908, provided that they had earned the long service and good conduct medal prior to the date of the cancellation of that article by a Union Government Notice of 1911?

replied: Yes, the gratuity will be granted. It was never the intention to give any retrospective effect to the cancellation of the 1908 regulation, providing for the grant of a gratuity on discharge, but possibly applications for the gratuity from members who had earned the medal before the 25th April, 1911, have been refused under a misapprehension. It must, however, be clearly understood that the gratuity will not be payable on discharge to those who before that date had not completed the 18 years’ service with an irreproachable character which renders them eligible for the medal.

asked the Minister of Lands whether he will introduce during the present session a Bill to amend section 8 of Act No. 42 of 1908 (Cape), so that a licence may be extended for more than a year in cases where the holder proves that he has bona fide done his utmost to find water, but that unfavourable circumstances, such as droughts, are responsible for his failure?

replied: It is not the intention of Government to introduce such legislation.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) How long were the laws providing for a land tax in force in Natal; (2) what was the gross amount collected for ordinary, special and absentee land tax during that period; and (3) what was the total cost of collecting and administering such land taxation?

replied: (1) The Natal land tax was in force in respect of the year from 1st July, 1908, to 30th June, 1909. (2) The assessment made by the late Commissioner of taxes was as follows: Ordinary, £10,090; special, £10,653; absentee, £9,990; total, £30,733. The gross collections amounted to £30,533. (3) Cost of collection was, approximately, 4 per cent, of the amount collected.

asked the Minister of Finance what area of land belonging to Europeans in Natal was stated in the land tax returns of 1909-1910 as being occupied by natives who paid rent to the owners?

replied: No information on the matter referred to is now available. The land tax returns (which were confidential) were destroyed by order of the Natal Government.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether the Government will take into consideration the introduction of legislation to provide for the exemption from the operation of native laws throughout the Union of natives who have been granted letters of such exemption in the Province of Natal?

replied: This question relates to a matter which has been referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration and report. The matter is still engaging consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Are any of the districts in the Union free from scab, and, if so, (2) (a) what are the districts, and (b) has the number of scab inspectors in such districts been reduced in consequence?

replied: (1) Many districts have been free of scab from time to time for short periods. On the 31st December, 1913, the following districts were free of scab, viz.: Elliot, Kentani, St. John’s, Umzimkulu, Willowvale, Xalanga, East Rand, Krugersdorp, Marico, Rustenburg, Frankfort, Ladybrand, Lindley, Senekal, Thaba N’chu, Bathurst, Cathcart, Colesberg, East London, Hanover, Knysna, Humansdorp, Komgha, Ladismith, Middelburg, Montagu, Mossel Bay, Oudts hoorn, Robertson, Stellenbosch, Steynsburg, Sutherland, Tarka, Swellendam, Van Bhyn’s Dorp. Since this date, however, the majority of these districts have become reinfected, owing to unlawful movements of sheep. (2) In view of the danger of reinfection by the movements of infected animals, it is considered inadvisable at this stage to reduce the number of sheep inspectors, nor will it be advisable to do so until such time as large areas comprising several districts have become free from scab for at least a period of twelve months.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) How many passengers travelled during the year ended the 31st March. 1914, from the following three places on the Malmesbury-Graafwater line, viz., (a) Rust Siding, (b) Pool Siding, and (o) Het Kruis; and (2) how many tons of goods were conveyed during the same period from the said sidings?

replied: (1) Passengers: Rust Station, 662; Pool Siding, 646; Het Kruis Station, 648. (2) Goods: Rust Station, 3,653 tons; Pool Siding, 3,136 tons; Het Kruis Station, 535 tons.

had given notice to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What was the number of accidents (i) fatal and (ii) non-fatal resulting in injury to railway and harbour employees engaged in or about (a) shunting operations and (b) other work for the year ending 31st December, 1913. showing (i) number of Europeans and (ii) other than Europeans; and (2) what were the amounts paid out in compensation for loss of life in the case of (a) Europeans and (b) other than Europeans?

The question dropped

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that intoxicating liquor is being sold on Sundays and other days to passengers on board the pleasure steamer Sir Fred, a vessel making trips of the duration of an hour or two in and about the waters of Table Bay, such steamer not being licensed; and (2) whether he is aware whether this is being done under and by virtue of section 11 of the Cape Liquor Act of 1898, and, if so, whether the Government is prepared to introduce a short Bill amending the said Act, so as to make such sales illegal?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) I am aware that these sales are stated to be made under section 11 of the Cape Liquor Act of 1898. The wording of that section might cover such sales, but I am confident that it was never intended that the section should have such effect. I am afraid, however that there will be no opportunity for the present of bringing in any amending legislation on this point.

That is a very serious state of affairs.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Who are the directors of the Union Land Bank; (2) what are the dates of appointment: (3) what are the amounts received by each (a) as salary or emolument, (b) as travelling allowance, (c) as subsistence allowance; and (4) is any other remuneration paid to them, and, if so, what?

replied: (1) (a) Thomas Berry Herold, general manager, chairman of the Central Board, (b) Richard Victor Acton, (c) John Dougall, (d) General Christian Hendrik Muller, (e) Gerard Hendrik Rissik. (2) All were appointed on 1st October, 1912. General Muller retired on 1st July, 1913, and was re-nominated, in terms of section 4 (2) of the Land Bank Act, 1912. (3) The remuneration payable to members of the Central Board is provided for in section 10 of the Act. The following payments were made during the year 1913 on account of travelling and subsistence allowances: Travelling: Richard Victor Acton, £4 16s.; John Dougall, nil; Gen. Christian Hendrik Muller, £2 2s. 3d.; Gerard Hendrik Rissik, nil. Subsistence: Richard Victor Acton, £4 10s.; John Dougall, nil; Gen. Christian Hendrik Muller, £1; Gerard Hendrik Rissik, nil. (4) No other remuneration was paid to directors by the bank.

had given notice to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is a fact that driver H. Chapman is being retrenched merely for the reason that he is known to be a staunch Trade Unionist?

The hon. member said that as, under the rules of the House, the phraseology of his question had had to be altered, the answer to it in its present form was so obvious that it was not necessary to put it.

The question therefore dropped.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will take into consideration the advisability of raising Woodstock station to a first-class station on account of the heavy traffic and consequent strain on the staff attached to the station?

replied: The conditions at Woodstock Station are not at present such as would justify the Administration in raising it to the first grade. There cannot be said to be any undue strain on the staff attached to that station, as the hon. member’s question would appear to infer.

asked the Minister of Lands whether the Government is taking steps to preserve to the public the natural beauties of the banks of the river or inlet leading to The Ebb and Flow on the Olifantshoek farm adjoining The Wilderness, in the George district of the Cape Province?

replied: As the hon. member is aware, the farm Olifantshoek was, with the concurrence of Parliament, granted during last session to the Dutch Reformed Church for the purpose of a labour colony for the settlement of poor whites. My attention has been drawn to the fact that portion of the Touws River traversing this farm, has been used for picnic purposes for years past, and the statement has been made to me that the Church intends to utilise certain land along that portion of the river known as the Ebb and Flow for agricultural purposes, which, it is alleged, is unsuitable for the purpose, and would destroy the natural forest. I have written to the Church on the subject with a view to obtaining an assurance that the natural beauties of that particular portion of the river will not be interfered with.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether similar conditions as to guards, feeding and housing of convicts, etc., have been imposed alike on the De Beers Company and the East Rand Proprietary Mines; and, if so, why the former pay only twopence per day and the latter one shilling and sixpence per head leased; and (2) if the conditions imposed are different, in what respect and to what extent do they differ?

replied: (1) At the East Rand the convict prison is on Government ground and only a small proportion of the convicts are employed by the East Rand Proprietary Mines, which do not contribute anything towards the cost of maintenance of the convicts. At the De Beers the convict prison is on De Beers’ ground, all the convicts are employed by De Beers, and the company pays all the cost of maintenance and in addition the sum of twopence per head per day. This latter sum last year amounted to £5,510 16s. 4d. (2) In the case of De Beers the warders are recruited on the spot by the Government Superintendent. The feeding of the convicts as regards meat ration is better than elsewhere, but in respect of the housing the conditions are similar.

asked the Minister of Justice: Whether the cost of maintenance of convicts leased to De Beers Company at twopence a head per day comes under audit by the Government, or is known merely from information supplied gratuitously by De Beers Company?

replied: As stated in my previous reply, the De Beers Company is responsible for all costs of maintenance of the convicts leased to it, and in addition pays the Government twopence per head per day. The payments made by De Beers in respect of maintenance are not subject to Government audit, but there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the amount of the expenditure as supplied by the company.

asked the Minister of Justice: Whether rewards for finding diamonds paid to convicts by De Beers Company form part of maintenance charges of convict labour, and if the amount quoted includes also wages to white workers employed, in a dual capacity, as armed guards?

replied: The £61,642 paid during 1913 by DeBeers in respect of the administration of the convict prison includes the percentages paid to convicts for finding diamonds, also the wages of all the European warders enrolled by the Government Superintendent.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries what are the daily hours of labour and average rate of pay of white men employed on the “floors ” of De Beers Company?

said that inquiries were being made, and the result would be communicated at a later date.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries whether he is in a position to state to the House: (1) The reasons which led to a disturbance in the Taungs Native Reserve and the consequent despatch of 100 police from the Transvaal to the alleged scene of disturbance; and (2) whether the Government has definitely decided not to throw open any portion of the Taungs Native Reserve for alluvial diamond digging?

replied: (1) Owing to the discovery of certain alluvial diamonds in the Tlaping portion of the Taungs Native Reserve, about 120 diggers from the neighbouring digging of Killarney rushed the reserve and pegged claims there on the 15th May. The Inspector of Claims and the Magistrate met the diggers subsequently, and explained that the Government was not prepared to proclaim a digging on Tlaping, as it is an area reserved for native occupation, and all claims were illegally pegged. As it was reported that a fresh rush might take place, some police have been sent to the locality. (2) The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether his attention has been called to an article, entitled “591 Railway Victims,” published in “The Worker” of 28th May, 1914; (2) whether a confidential circular such as that referred to in that article was, in fact, issued by the Chief Engineer of the South African Railways; (3) if so, was this done with the consent and concurrence of the Government: and (4) if not issued with the sanction of the Government, will the Minister give immediate orders for its cancellation?

replied: The answers to the first two questions are in the affirmative. In regard to questions (5) and (4), I have already intimated to the House on several occasions that a Special Committee was appointed shortly after the termination of the strike, for the purpose of investigating the cases of certain men who took part therein and were not re-employed. This Committee considered and reported upon each individual case, and recommended the rein statement of approximately 50 per cent. of the men whom they examined. The men refused reinstatement and have had the opportunity of having their cases reconsidered by the Board. Certain men did appeal against the decision of the Strike Inquiry Committee, and such appeals were dealt with by the Board, who, wherever necessary, examined the appellants and witnesses. The Board went very thoroughly into each case, and in a few instances they agreed to men being reinstated who had previously been refused re-employment. It would have been preposterous to have refused men reinstatement at one centre and to have taken them into the service of the Administration elsewhere, and, obviously, the only way to prevent this was to advise all responsible officers that certain men were precluded from re-employment. This is an ordinary business precaution, and is the only means of securing the non-employment of undesirable men in a large service. This information was circulated only to the Administration’s officers responsible for the employment of men, and was not made known by the Administration to anyone outside the service.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he is aware of the numerous urgent representations made to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for telephone extension from (a) Pietersburg to New Smit’s Dorp, (b) from Molsgat to the Olifants River Tin Mines, and (c) from Pietersburg to, Woodbush Village?

I am aware that representations have been made for the extension of the telephone to the places named. It is not, however, practicable at the present time to give effect to the applications.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Is he aware that as a result of the speeding up of fast goods trains the guards’ vans at present in use are now too light to remain continually on the rails while running, with consequent excessive oscillation and resultant danger to the guards on these trains; and (2) will the Minister consider the advisability of supplying heavier vans on these fast goods trains?

replied: The hon. member altogether overstates the case. Some time ago attention was directed to the oscillation of an old type of van when attached to fast goods trains, particularly on the Witbank line. These light vans were at once withdrawn from that service, and their use on fast trains has since been prohibited.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) How many men, (a) white and (b) coloured, have been killed, and how many injured during the past twelve months to date whilst engaged in shunting operations; (2) whether he is aware that, in a great many instances, where alterations have been effected in station yards, the ballasting is of so rough and uneven a character as to considerably increase the danger of shunting operations, especially at night; and (3) in the interest of the safety of the staff will he cause signal wires running across station yards to be placed underground without delay?

replied: (1) Shunting accidents:

Other than shunting accidents:

A number of the cases of injury were not of a very serious nature. These figures included all accidents due to want of caution or breach of regulations by employees. (2) I am not aware that the facts are as alleged by the hon. member. There is no ground for any general complaint, as the ballast is levelled off as quickly as possible in the interests of safe working; but if the hon. member will specify any particular, yard he may have in view, inquiries will be made in the matter. The efforts of the Administration are directed towards ensuring that station yards and other places where shunting is constantly taking place are kept in such a condition as to minimise any risk of accident to shunters. (3) Generally speaking signal wires are so arranged as to prevent any reasonable possibility of shunters coming in contact therewith, and in all important yards precautions are taken to see that wires likely in any way to constitute a danger are properly covered. I may mention for the hon. member’s information that the whole question of accidents to men engaged in shunting operations already appears on the agenda for discussion at a conference of railway officers to be held in Cape Town this week.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether representations have been made to the Administration that the winter uniforms issued last winter to the staff in the Cape Province were of much too light a material for winter wear; (2) was a promise given by the Administration that heavier clothing similar to that supplied to the old Cape Service would be issued this winter; (3) is the Minister aware that the issue this winter is of the same quality and weight as issued for summer wear; (4) is it a fact that the overcoats and mackintoshes supplied hitherto, and which are supposed to last six years, are worn out in less than three years; and (5) in view of the large number of men on the sick list last winter, due to unsuitable clothing, will the Minister consider the advisability of immediately issuing more suitable clothing?

replied: (1) No official complaints or representations have been made to the Administration in this respect, although it is understood that one or two men have spoken casually of the insufficient weight of the winter garments. On the other hand, several men returned their winter uniforms last year and again this year and applied for lighter clothing. (2) No. (5) No; nor are the facts as stated. The winter garments are thicker than those supplied for summer wear and the jackets are fully lined. (4) No; overcoats or mackintoshes—whichever the employee chooses—are renewed every three years, and in most cases they are understood to last somewhat longer. The Administration does not supply both garments. (5) The insinuation contained in this question is groundless, but the quality and general suitability of the uniforms supplied to the different grades will in the ordinary course receive careful consideration before any new contract is entered into. The existing contract does not expire until after next winter’s issue.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the existing arrangement of the department with regard to recruiting advances to natives is supposed to extend only to the end of June, and that great inconvenience is being inflicted on the persons engaged in that industry by not knowing what is going to be the arrangement after that date, he will make a statement to the House (a) as to whether the existing arrangement will be continued, (b) if so, for how long, and (c) if not, what arrangement he intends making?

replied: The Government is awaiting receipt of the report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the grievances of natives in industrial employment. A statement as to the decision of the Government on the question of advances to native labourers will in due course be made.

Before proceeding to the notices of motion, I wish to call attention to Recommendation No. (2) of Part II. of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, as printed on page 770 of the Votes and Proceedings. The Waste Lands Committee is appointed to consider and report upon all such recommendations for the disposal of Crown Lands, or of servitudes thereon, or conditions connected therewith, as may be submitted by the Government under the provisions of any Act or law requiring Parliamentary approval. The recommendations referred to, dealing as it does with the system adopted by certain employers of labour of paying wages by means of “good-fors” or some other form of payment in lieu of cash, is clearly beyond the scope of the reference of the Committee, and I must therefore rule that the same be expunged from the report.

moved the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: The action of the Government in issuing instructions permanently excluding 299 citizens of the Union from any future employment in the Railway Service, thereby arbitrarily inflicting on those citizens, without charge or trial, a punishment and permanent disability not provided by any law in force in the Union.

The hon. member will remember that this matter has been the subject of more than one discussion in this House during the present session. Moreover, in my opinion, the subject matter of the motion is not such as is contemplated by Standing Order No. 29, and I am therefore unable to allow it to be put to the House.

Might I point out, sir, that there has not been any public discussion?

I have given my ruling.

moved: That, with a view to encouraging the manufacturing and industrial interests of the Union, the Government be requested to consider the advisability of placing all Government contracts for articles which can be manufactured in South Africa with South African manufacturers. The mover said he thought the House would agree that the encouragement of their industries was a national question of great importance, and it affected not only the industrial section, but the agricultural population, and not only the town, but the country. There was no doubt that the true staple wealth of a country depended on its agricultural and industrial resources. In this country they had been living on the proceeds of the mines, and they had not been preparing for a rainy day. There was no doubt that the country was living directly and indirectly on the mines. Continuing, he said that the prosperity of their farmers depended on the industrial population, and if they got a population to consume those products they must encourage their industries. Agriculture had had something done for it and a good deal of money had been spent on the farmers in one way or another. Personally, he did not begrudge this money, but when it came to industrial developments, he did feel that it was time that something was done. The industries of this country, to his mind, were languishing, and there was no doubt about it that they were almost at a standstill. There were three reasons why such a state of affairs had come about—want of encouragement, want of a fixed tariff, and want of capital. He pointed out that though many hon. members might not know it, the country had advanced so far as manufacturing was concerned to a considerable extent. Hon. members would be surprised if they knew what the country was manufacturing, but this was on a small scale owing to a want of encouragement and capital.

He said that the South African Industrial Exhibition had given people some idea of what was being done, but he did not think that the general mass of the population had any clear idea of what was being produced in this country. He pointed out that the instability of the tariff had a good deal to do with the lack of money for the encouragement of industries. Nobody was going to put capital into industries when they did not know what was going to be taxed from one year’s end to the other. There was a want of national feeling in connection with this matter. The produce produced in this country was equal to that produced by other countries—it was equally as good as that produced in England, Canada, and elsewhere, and the manufactures were as good. He held that if the colonists adopted the same view as the South African National Union, then they could do a great deal. Pessimists laughed at the idea, but it had been done in other young countries, and it was done in Australia and America now. The main thing was that they should support their own industries before they supported the industries of other countries. One could not fail to be struck, on going through the figures, at the enormous amount of stuff imported into this Union month by month. There were such things as cake, cheese, jam, confectionery, and furniture, all of which could be produced in this country. He found that the Government were the biggest delinquents, and he certainly thought that it was the Government who should set an example to the rest of the country. The Government imported in 1913 £3,302,424. The imports ranged from cannons to bottled beer. (Laughter.) He alluded to the enormous amount of cartridges imported, also coke, saddlery and harness. and even printing and bookbinding to the amount of £782.

He then went on to point out the figures with regard to the importation of railway goods, and referred particularly to the importation of £316,388 worth of sleepers. It was very interesting to know, with regard to these sleepers, where they came from. He found that sleepers to the value of £197,615 were imported from Australia, £64,336 from England, £31,926 from Holland, £6,722 from Belgium, and the remainder from the Dutch East Indies, Chili, and Japan.

The amount for imported wagons for railway traffic was £29,000. Those figures showed very clearly that the Government was the biggest offender. Instead of spending money in other parts of the world they ought to spend it here. The Manufacturers’ Association had done good work. He had a letter with him which had been sent by the Association to the Minister of Mines and Industries last October, which said that the Government did everything to hamper the industries of the country, instead of encouraging them. He instanced the Case of the United Tobacco Co. The company had imported a lot of machinery to put the boxes together, and then the tax was put on. Had that not been done the result would have been increased employment of capital and labour. Continuing, he said that he took a special interest in the saddlery contract. On that question he felt that a great injustice had been done to a colonial industry. He also felt that a South African manufacturer had been put to the trouble of tendering, although the Government had had no intention of accepting a South African tender. If there was any industry in South Africa which deserved encouragement it was the leather industry—there was no other industry which was doing better work. If put to its full earning capacity the industry could increase its output by 100 per cent. He knew numbers of people who had been employed in the industry who were now unemployed and doing labouring work. When tenders were called for the factory started to prepare 2,000 saddles, and men were imported from England and elsewhere for the purpose of doing the work. Mr. Sanderson had felt that he would receive the same consideration as he had received in the past in connection with similar contracts. Tenders were called for in South Africa and oversea. The reply Mr. Sanderson received was that the Government very much regretted being unable to accept his tender, but that by accepting an oversea tender, it would mean a saving of £6,500. He (Dr. Hewat) contended that the Colonial tender was cheaper than the oversea tender on the same conditions. The oversea tenderer was allowed to tender f.o.b. to the nearest port, was not asked to add Customs, freight, landing charges, and so on, whereas the South African manufacturer was asked to add all those charges on his imported leather. The correspondence, to his mind, did not reflect any credit on the department which dealt with it. It had been pointed out by Mr. Sanderson that £4,716 was not added to the contract, and that it ought to have been added. After going through the correspondence, and if they deleted all those requirements he had referred to, which were put on the Colonial manufacturer or importer, and added the 2½ per cent. preference, it showed that Mr. Sanderson’s tender worked out at £184 12s. 8½d. less than the oversea tender. One could not help feeling, when going through the whole matter, that the South African manufacturer had a distinct grievance, and there appeared to be no desire on the part of the department to consider the South African manufacturer. Sub-letting was not allowed in regard to the South African tenders, but there had been no such restrictions in regard to the oversea tender. It had been laid down that 2,000 saddles would have to be supplied in the first two months by the South African manufacturer, and 1,000 saddles per month after that. The oversea tenderer had been asked the earliest possible time he could make delivery. The hon. member went on to refer to the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, and read a letter from Mr. Sanderson, refuting the statement that people more readily bought English-made saddlery, and stating that both samples had been returned unopened. One could not help feeling (proceeded the hon. member) that it had never been intended that that tender should be given to the South African manufacturer. He referred to cases where orders for saddles had not been advertised, but sent oversea. He said that the saddlery industry in that country was one which deserved every encouragement, and should not be overlooked. He did not blame the Minister, but he blamed the department concerned, and he was simply bringing the facts to the notice of the Minister. He did not believe that the Tender Board had done justice to them. Alluding to the 10 per cent, preference which was given to South African-made articles, the hon. member said that it was allowed on material manufactured in South Africa entirely from South African materials, but 5 per cent, only was allowed if manufactured in South Africa from articles which included imported articles. It was a young country, and there were very few things manufactured there which were not manufactured without some imported articles and material being used, so that it might be taken that the preference given to the South African manufactured articles was 5 per cent. In a young country like that, he would like to have gone the whole hog. The Government should use nothing but South African manufactured articles. They must realise that in that country they had a rising generation, and they were leaving them without any means of earning their livelihood, because they could not all be farmers, lawyers, or doctors; they must encourage their industries, which were languishing at present, and encourage capital to come into that country to assist them by fixing a definite tariff to stand for a number of years. (The hon. member was inaudible on several occasions.)

said he heartily supported and seconded the motion. He wished the Government to understand that a large section of its supporters were in favour of the principles contained in the motion, and he wished further to say that if the allegations made by the mover were correct then a serious investigation should be made. (Ministerial cheers.) If the allegations were well founded the executive officers of the department should understand what was the policy of the Government in regard to such matters. Apart from the policy indicated in the motion, he held that if the allegations were true they were of the most serious character, and the responsible officers should be censured. (Hear, hear.) The House was entitled to hear a full explanation from the Minister.

said he did not agree with the policy advocated by the hon. member for Wood-stock, who had stated that South African industries were languishing. But they had heard that story before. He admitted that the industries were not doing so well as they were, but then business generally was not so flourishing as it was. Still, South African industries were suffering no worse than were other businesses. One reason why the harness and saddlery industry was not doing so well was the spread of motoring: During 1910-11-12 and part of 1913 the harness makers were as flourishing as were other business enterprises. He (Mr. Jagger) was astonished at the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton). They were calling out for economy, and they had been criticising Government for spending money needlessly, but now because Government had saved a few thousand pounds it war again criticised. But the last person who was thought of in this House was the taxpayer. The saddlery tenders were submitted to the Tender Board at Pretoria, consisting of the heads of departments. He believed most of them were Colonial born, and he would imagine that they would be possessed of as much patriotism as any member of the House. The hon. member for Woodstock stated that the tenders were called for in Europe f.o.b., but when the Board compared the tenders it took into consideration not only the price, which was £3 18s., but also freight. 1s. 10d., and duty, 17s. 2d. per saddle. This made a total of £4 17s., and the best tender received from a colonial manufacturer was from Mr. Sanderson, who quoted £5 13s. 4d. for saddles of English leather, this being 16s. 4d. above the English tender. The difference on the whole of the contract was £4,083. Mr. Sanderson quoted for a saddle made of colonial leather at £5 6s. 7d., and even on this basis there was a saving by accepting the English tender of £2,000. He did not believe that the officials had any preference so far as oversea tenders were concerned. If the tenders had been the same he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the contract would have been given to the colonial man. Mr. Sanderson offered a reduction of 1s. a saddle if ordinary packing cases were allowed instead of tin-lined cases. Was Parliament justified, as trustees for the taxpayers, in spending £4,000 extra in giving the tender to a South African firm? He said emphatically no.

Yes.

The Government was perfectly right, and I only hope it will continue to work on the same lines. All other things being equal, give tenders to the local man, but I do very strongly object to taking the taxpayers’ money to benefit the local manufacturer when he can well look after himself.

said that the total of Mi. Sanderson’s tender for saddles made of English leather was £28,340, and deducting the 2½ per cent. preference allowed it was reduced to £27,669, whereas the amount of the oversea tender, which was accepted, was £24,250. For saddles made of colonial leather Sanderson’s tender was £26,645, but deducting the preference of 5 per cent., it was reduced to £25,403, but if there were deducted the amounts which would be charged for duty, freight, and packing, the difference against Mr. Sanderson was only £255. Such treatment left the South African manufacturer absolutely in despair. A very much higher preference should be given to Colonial tenderers and our money should be spent in South Africa. He contended that this was money which could have been well spent in South Africa if these contracts had been executed here.

He had a telegram in reference to ambulance wagons, wagons that could have been built here, and better built here than in England. Wagons built during the war both at Pietermaritzburg and in the Western Province were superior, if anything, to wagons imported from Home. A firm of Pietermaritzburg wagon builders stated that they had noticed in the “Gazette” that field ambulance wagons would be required for the Defence Force. On the 24th September the firm wrote to the Secretary for Defence pointing out that they had made a speciality in this class of work, and stating that they would like to know, if possible, when this work was likely to be carried out. The reply came from the Department of Defence that sample wagons had been ordered from oversea and would probably arrive six months hence, and the Defence Department would invite tenders for making the wagons in the Union. (Hear, hear.) The firm added that they wished emphatically to protest against the importation of vehicles which could be built in this country. Then he (Mr. Griffin) had also been told that the Defence Department wanted a number of blankets. They called upon the Ceres Manufacturing Co. to tender for a large number of blankets. He was also informed that the De Beers Diamond Mining Co. had purchased blankets from this company for a number of years, and found them most useful in every respect. These blankets were made from Colonial wool. They were tendered for, and the information he had was to the effect that the order was going oversea because, astonishing as the reason might seem, there was too much wool in them. (Laughter.) The consequence was that the order had gone over their heads. He thought it was a great shame that anything of that sort should have been allowed.

It was most reprehensible on the part of the officials concerned, and there should be an investigation in connection with these matters. He had a further complaint with reference to contracts. It dealt with quite a different subject, but it showed that there were men in South Africa who were prepared to tender for particular work, provided they had an opportunity. The Zuurfontein Foundry in the Transvaal asked that they should be given an opportunity to tender for the Government’s requirements in iron, steel, and brass work. They urged that all tenders should be first called for in this country. Mr. Griffin went on to say that he hoped this question would be very seriously taken into consideration, because every penny they could save and spend in this country was to the advantage of this country. (Hear, hear.) There was one more case to which he wished to refer. He was told by a manufacturer in Pietermaritzburg that tenders were called for bell tents. A large contractor was allowed to tender for these tents in bond. The smaller man had no opportunity of doing this and, as a consequence, he was placed at a great disadvantage. Conditions of that sort, Mr. Griffin urged, were not justified. In concluding, he spoke in favour of the movement for the placing of contracts for Government supplies through South African merchants or agents.

said he did not wish to go into this big subject because he understood that the Government and everybody else were anxious to get away as soon as possible. He wanted to point out one illustration of how arguments were used in connection with this matter. The hon. member who had just sat down, in his argument about the saddlery contract, took off the amount of preference, and called that a reduction. Now that was a beautiful argument. The Government were prepared to forego 5 per cent. of the total amount on these particular saddles, and consequently lost that money. They made that reduction; in other words, the people of the country paid for it. The hon. member actually said that this was a reduction on the part of Sandersons. It was no reduction on the part of Sandersons. The hon. member had blamed the Government very severely because they did not give preference or some sort of special consideration to South African producers. He must surely have forgotten about a place in the Transvaal where they turned out bricks and earthenware. He would like the hon. member to ask the Government for a return showing how much money had been spent by them in that factory without tender or anything else, as far as his information went.

The hon. member had lamented in the most doleful language the fact that he saw in this country any number of things imported from abroad which we might produce ourselves. If he went to any country in the world he would see the same thing —in Germany and America, articles made in England, and in England numerous articles which had been made elsewhere. England, according to 1911 returns, bought from America £38,000,000 worth of goods, from Germany £13,000,000 worth, and from France £9,000,000 worth, and sold to France less than £1,500,000, to Germany less than £4,000,000, and to America less than £3,000,000. Why did they find such a state of things as that? Simply because the people found it was to their advantage to buy elsewhere. He desired to move, as an amendment, as follows: “That in the general interest of South Africa, when Government supplies are required, equality of opportunity with oversea traders to tender for all such supplies should be given to South African merchants and agents.” He went on to say that merchants and agents in South Africa asked that they should be given equal opportunities to tender with people oversea. He admitted that it seemed odd, especially to a non-business man, that there might be times and circumstances when a firm would sell more cheaply through an agent in this country than one could buy from that firm at Home. Such, however, was the fact. He had proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. In Johannesburg most of the requirements of the gold mining industry were bought from local men.

The intention of his motion was to stop the practice of buying through the High Commissioner’s Office and so give all merchants and agents an equal opportunity of tendering. He moved the amendment because he could not possibly vote for the motion. It was their duty to look after the interests of taxpayers in general, but if they were going to give the Government carte blanche to buy in South Africa then he was convinced they were not going to adopt a right course.

seconded the amendment

said it appeared to him that Mr. Jagger and Mr. Quinn had no sympathy with Colonial manufactures. If there was a question on which the people felt strongly, it was on this matter, and they felt that every possible opportunity should be given to the South African manufacturer.

All orders should be given out in South Africa unless there was a big difference in the price, and even then all the circumstances ought to be taken into consideration. He feared that when the tenders came before the Tender Board it was simply a matter of price with them. To these members of the Tender Board there was little question of encouraging South African industries—they simply wanted to get things done as cheaply as possible. The Government were greatly to blame because they did not sufficiently encourage local industries. He knew the details of the tender of Messrs. Sanderson, and feared that the Government had done nothing to keep the tender here. At one time the S.A.R. imported soda water, while the best soda water was manufactured in South Africa. The supporters of the Government agreed with the principle laid down in the motion. The South African Party thought that industries could best be fostered by keeping the work and the money here. He held that as good a saddle could be made here as in Europe, and that if Sanderson’s tender had been accepted the difference to the Treasury would have been trifling.

said he could not allow the animadversions which had been cast against the member for Cape Town, Central, and the member for Troyeville, who were not in their places, to pass without being answered. It had been said that both these members had no sympathy with the manufacturer, but he wished to inform the hon. member who had just sat down that they were both Colonial manufacturers, and the member for Cape Town was a manufacturer on a large scale and employed more men perhaps than most of them in that House, while the hon. member for Troyeville had always done what he possibly could in the way of using and encouraging the use of Colonial products. The member for Troyeville was also generally supposed to have an antipathy against a certain class of people, but that was not the case, because he had constantly employed them, and had taken some pains to teach them a trade. Who, he (Mr. Merriman) asked, would have complained about the extravagance of the Government had they thrown away £3,000 or £4,000 when they could possibly have purchased the goods at a cheaper rate? Why, they on that side of the House would have been the first to blame the Government. They could not be too careful in the matter of giving out these tenders, or else they would soon have the country full of trusts. Why, he asked, should a high price be paid simply for the benefit of a few gentlemen. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Troyeville that there were hundreds of articles which could be produced in this country, but no attempt, or at least very little, was made to produce them. The fact was that the country would not take the trouble to grow what it required, but he had noticed we were always ready to run after a balloon. We were very much like the prospector: there was always a fortune just over the hill. He thought they owed a great deal to the Railway Catering Department, which had done a great deal in bringing to the notice of the public what this country could produce. He did not see why they should instruct the Government to adopt a policy of paying more money than they need do in order to further the interests of certain firms and individuals.

said that the right hon. gentleman had asked why this country did not produce some of the things it could produce? The answer was obvious. They had not tried through any of the Governments of that country to properly protect and assist the industries of the country. It had been stated before Union that the Government were going to foster industries, but this had not been done. The right hon. gentleman had been legislating in the Cape for over 40 years, and the condition of affairs down here was due to his policy in the past. Members had stated that they were afraid of getting into the hands of trusts. They were in the hands of trusts to-day. What greater trust had they than the big merchants of South Africa? When, in Johannesburg, he asked a certain gentleman why he did not import better machinery for the farmers? That gentleman said he was going to do so, and showed him (Sir T. Cullinan) a number of catalogues which declared that he was the sole agent for this, that and the other firm. Who were the monopolists? The monopolists were those hon. gentlemen who tried to put it on people that they were free traders and were going to work for the benefit of the country. In supporting the motion, he said “they should try and manufacture their own goods in this country.

said that this motion deserved the very careful consideration of the Government. He thought that this country should profit by the example set by other countries, and do everything it possibly could for its industries. The request contained in the motion was a most reasonable one, and he thought it would only be right for the Government to carefully consider the matter. If they went to other countries and saw what protection had done for those countries, they found they had a great lesson to learn. Let them take the case of Australia. Australia adopted protection in 1901. The population was then 3,800,000, and there were 11,897 factories, employing 204,000 workers. In 1909 the population had risen to 4,324,000, the factories had increased to 13,197, the number of workers employed totalled 266,000, and wages to the amount of £21,000,000 were paid annually. In this country they had a population of 1,300,000 whites, about 6,000,000 natives, and 850,000 coloured. Massing the natives and coloured together, and working it out on the basis usually quoted in this House of seven natives to a white man, they had a white population of 2,300,000. He thought they had every reason to copy the example of Australia. He would take one item—leather. Hides and skins to the value of £540,000 were exported from the Union during the three months ended March 31, and during the same period they imported manufactured leather goods to the value of £418,000. They had several tanneries in the country, where leather was prepared most beautifully and in an up-to-date style, and he thought that this industry should receive great consideration and encouragement. They produced the necessary material in this country, and why should not it be worked up here? Dealing with the Government contract sent oversea for goods for the Defence Department, the hon. member said he had carefully studied the subject, but had failed to find out why the contract was sent oversea. There was a difficulty. As to the amount of duty to be imposed on leather that may be required for certain manufactures and is not prepared in the country, and the duty to be imposed on imported leather goods, but Canada had got over it in a reasonable way. Differentiation was made between leather imported into the country and leather goods—the leather was burdened with a lower duty than the leather manufactured goods. That could be adopted here, and if manufacturers found it necessary to import a certain quantity or quality of leather a smaller duty could be imposed than that on manufactured leather goods. Many of these manufacturers had made considerable headway, and it only required a little encouragement to make it appeal to the national spirit. He did not say that people here should use South African goods not up to oversea standard, but when they were of the same standard he thought people should be educated to use them. There was a certain prejudice against South African goods in the way of jam and Quaker oats, though people who had used the latter were fully convinced that it was better than the imported article.

Those were the things they should give encouragement to. It was not always necessary that the raw products should be produced in the country. As soon as they started manufacturing and creating a demand and convincing the people that the article could be made here then the people would start to produce the raw material. In connection with broom manufacture there was very little of the raw material now imported. With regard to cigarettes, he held that the tobacco of the country was excellent, and the way in which it was handled now was quite up-to-date. Still, they found people saying that there was something wanting in the quality of the tobacco. If people used the tobacco they would soon cease to use the imported article. He thought they should place a prohibitive duty on imported tobacco. The same arguments applied to soap, candles and cement. All those things could be produced in this country, but the industries in their infancy should be protected. He pointed out that South Africa produced all the dynamite it required. He thought that what was asked for in the resolution was only reasonable and necessary, and it was the duty of the Government to place their own orders with manufacturers in the country.

said he thought the object of the motion was to make the Government do its share in encouraging the use of South African products. Whenever they had a discussion of that sort they had on one side the protagonists of the man who started an industry in South Africa and insisted on having that industry protected. On the other side, they had a man like the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. J. W. Jagger), who had been an importer all his life, and who looked at South Africa from the point of view of the importer. It was an absolute slur on South Africa that every shopkeeper should look upon it as a matter of pride if he were a direct importer. He (Mir. Botha) had a great admiration for the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, but he was not a proper man to give a fair and unbiassed judgment on a matter of that sort. It was not a matter of Free Trade or Protection. Whatever the Railway Catering Department had done in advertising South African products it had learnt from the South African National Union. He thought that what the motion intended to convey was what the Minister of Finance had said in Durban last year—that what they would have to do in the future would be to seriously consider the tariff, single out a number of important articles which ought to be produced in South Africa, and then the Government should say that they would fix a tariff for a number of years, so that the man who wanted to invest money in South African industries would have security. He (Mr. Botha) supported that view. The point was this—that the Government must sit down and make up its mind that certain goods must be produced in South Africa and then put on a distinctly protective tariff. Unless they did that they would still be drifting, and they would have nothing to fall back upon. If was the duty of every thinking man to follow a policy of that description. He (Mr. Botha) was not a protectionist, nor was he a free trader. He thought it was time for those who were not wheat growers or importers to be left to judge the matter and arrive at a reasonable tariff. He appealed to his hon. friends the farmers to make sacrifices. Ever since they had responsible institutions in this country they had been governed by farmers and they could see the result of it in the tariff. He was not representing farmers. He thought they were not discussing in that Parliament the things that really affected South Africa—they skimmed over them.

That motion distinctly tended to getting somewhere near the interests of South Africa.

said he did not think the diatribe of the last speaker against the farmers was at all deserved. It was perfectly true that the agricultural population had borne a large part in the Government of South Africa, and now they had the fruits—they had carefully avoided both extremes. The farmers had favoured those industries which had a legitimate reason for existence in this country. He thought the farmers had been most liberal. In his remarks his hon. friend (Mr. Botha) had not addressed himself to the motion before the House. He himself had raised the issue of free trade and protection which had nothing to do with the motion. If he (the Minister) was compelled to choose between the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock and the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville, he would vote for the motion. What did the amendment mean—the amendment meant that the Government should in no case ask for tenders abroad notwithstanding that they had a large department in London—that they were not to make use of that means, but in every case they should only call for tenders in South Africa. If carried into effect, the middlemen, the merchants and the importers would be further assisted. He saw no objection against the motion of his hon. friend, though it went too far. It was quite a legitimate object, he wanted to increase the manufactures and industries of the Union, but in asking, more specifically, that Government contracts should be placed with South African manufacturers, that was a little too far. Nevertheless the principle was all right, and he saw no object in the House adopting the motion.

When hon. members argued about that matter they tended to forget the position of the Government in this country. They must remember that the Government was not a private individual. If it were dealing with its own money it could do as it liked, but it had to look after the interests of the country. The Government should be above suspicion; it was quite reasonable to conceive that a corrupt Government might help its friends. They had a Tender Board to deal with the contracts; that Board went through every tender of importance in this country and advised the Government. If the Government did not follow that advice it could be held up before the House and criticised for its action Otherwise the Government would not be above suspicion, and if that were so it would be an evil day to the country. In laying down the regulations for the guidance of the Tender Board they had carried out the principle which his hon. friend had at heart, namely, to give preference to South African manufacturers and products. At the time when the Sanderson tender was under discussion the preference given was smaller than it was at the present time. At that time the Tender Board regulations laid it down that where articles were manufactured in this country purely from South African ingredients, the Tender Board would give a preference of 5 per cent. in connection with Government tenders, but if the articles tendered for were either in whole or in part manufactured from imported products only 2½ per cent. preference was given.

Who laid down these regulations?

The Government. He added that they had gone back to the principle laid down by the old Cape Government. His hon. friend evidently thought that they were going too far in assisting South African manufacturers, but within the limits there was a great deal of force in the arguments in favour of the principle.

How did you arrive at these percentages?

said it was somewhat arbitrary and it might be in certain cases that that arbitrary limit would not operate very fairly. They could only lay down a general rule, and by giving that preference of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. to South African manufacturers he thought they were quite fair. The idea was to put the two on an equal basis, and having done that to give preference to the South African manufacturer. They took the f.o.b. price, say, in London, and added freight and separate Customs duty, which would have to be paid, having done that we give the South African products the 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. advantage. He thought the principle would be approved by the House, and that being so he did not think they need waste any more time on that general discussion, but should adopt the motion.

The amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville was regatived, and the motion was adopted.

moved: That in the opinion of this House, the apathy with which the Government has considered the critical condition of the entrance to the Durban Harbour, which is in consequence in danger of destruction, is not in the interests of the Province of Natal. Proceeding, he said in reading the “Cape Argus” the previous day he noticed an instructive article criticising a book by Mr. E. J. C. Stevens, and in that criticism was a general statement that Natal was as absolutely a black man’s land, as India, and the author proposed to make of Natal a native location. That seemed to him to be some indication of the state they had got into so far as Natal was concerned. It was the idea of a large proportion of the people of South Africa regarding the place Natal ought to occupy in South Africa, and in view of that it could not be wondered that the matter he was going to bring to the notice of the House was not one which would attract the amount of attention which it ought to do. Nevertheless it was a matter in which the vital interests of South Africa were permanently and decidedly wrapped up. At the time of Union probably the greatest asset which was brought into the Union by any single Province of the Union was the huge potential industry of coal. In connection with that there were two paramount necessities, one a safe and convenient harbour, available at all hours of the tide, for ships with the greatest draught, and another a railway as economically as could be devised for the purpose of conveying the coal to the ports. The question of harbour had been solved by Natal. In place of a harbour which they had in his recollection, say, 30 years ago, when they had a depth of only 5 or 6 feet at the bar at low water, Natal had taken the matter in hand, had screwed up courage to the sticking place and spent £4,000,000 in making a commodious harbour at Durban. The hon. member went on to refer to the valuable services of the late Mr. Hy. Escombe in that connection.

Mr. Escombe had foreseen the day when Durban would be the coaling port of the southern hemisphere, and had persuaded Natal to prepare for that time, and he had seen what a valuable asset to South Africa such a harbour as that of Durban would be for the trade to the hinterland, for which Durban was the natural port. In 1882 the average depth of water at low water at the bar had been 6 feet, in 1895 it was 12 feet, in 1907, 32 feet, and in 1912, 35 feet. The tonnage handled at the port was 320,000 tons inwards in 1895, millions in 1907, and no less than 5,800,000 tons in 1912. For that work Natal had equipped itself with probably the most powerful dredging fleet in the world, and it was dredging that had made that great depth at the bar possible. Up to 1904, 75,000,000 tons of spoil had been dealt with by these dredgers. That had been the position at the time of Union. They had a harbour complete, in which that huge amount of goods was being dealt with and that great depth of water reached at the bar. Within five years what had the position become? The harbour entrance to-day was almost in the position of crumbling to ruin. Constant vigilance and attention were needed to keep the entrance of Durban harbour in the best condition. He could only judge by results whether they had had that constant vigilance and attention, and they appeared to have been absent. The Minister might say that the work was in hand, but he would ask, why had it not been taken in hand long before? During the Easter recess he (Mr. Fawcus) had inspected the entrance of the harbour, but not a hand had been stirred and nothing had been done at all, as far as he could see. From the pier-head there was such a scene of desolation as one could hardly believe possible. The end of the Innes Breakwater was falling to pieces; the lighthouse had gone, and the breakwater was in a most precarious position as a whole. The Minister could not say that he had not been warned, for he (Mr. Fawcus) had drawn his attention 24 months ago to the necessity for protecting the Innes Breakwater. A year or more ago they had a vote of £10,000 passed for the purpose of erecting a Titan frame to handle the large blocks of concrete, weighing between 35 and 40 tons, which were to be placed outside the breakwater and for protecting it. The crane had been erected there, but had been standing idle for 8 or 9 months. The hon. member for Durban, Point (Mr. Silburn) had asked the Minister a question about the matter, and the reply had been that he was waiting for some timbers to arrive from Australia. The question that would strike the ordinary man was whether these timbers could not have been ordered at the same time as the crane, because the necessity for these timbers could easily have been foreseen. Surely in a country like South Africa some timbers might have been obtained locally. While the Minister was waiting for the timbers to arrive, the entrance to the harbour might have been absolutely wrecked, if a storm had come on. The hon. member instanced the value of Durban Harbour in regard to the docking of large vessels which needed repair, such as the Dover Castle, which had struck a rock off Algoa Bay, and had been repaired on the Durban Floating Dock. He went on to say that, if the end of the Innes Breakwater should be washed away into the fairway, the protection of the North Pier would be gone, and it might also be wrecked, because it was of lighter construction. At present the state of the Innes Breakwater was such that the Titan crane could not go along, owing to the damage which had been caused. The reason why the whole thing had not been washed away and had not been ruined was because of the protection of the sand. The hon. member pointed out that in Kalk Bay work had been going on steadily in connection with the fishing harbour there, as it used to go on in Durban. Within one month of the crane for Kalk Bay having been landed, it was laying blocks. He did not say there was anything wrong in the work being proceeded with at Kalk Bay, because the poor people needed cheap food, and a fishing harbour provided that in the way of cheap fish, and it was right that such fishing harbours should be built at Kalk Bay as well as in other places round the coast, but what he objected to was the way in which the Durban Harbour entrance had been neglected.

Why had something not been done long before? In 1907 public attention was first called to the dangerous condition in which the Durban Harbour was getting, because it was insufficiently protected. In 1909 there was a big storm, and half the blocks protecting the breakwater were swept away. Last year a big piece of the Innes Breakwater disappeared, and if the Government did not take steps, half of this breakwater would become what the Minister would describe as “a dead asset.” The entrance to the Durban Harbour was too narrow, being only 600 feet, with a navigable channel of but 400 feet. He believed that the day was not far distant when the entrance might have to be widened, and that was the opinion of some seafaring men. The Innes Breakwater was being undermined, and no steps were taken to meet the difficulty, until after great pieces of the breakwater had disappeared. He found it hard to account for this laxity, but whenever any matter in connection with Natal was mentioned in the House, it was greeted with a spirit of amused hostility.

No.

True.

That is the neglect we complain of in Natal. The Government is not free from it, and their action, not only in regard to the harbour but the coal lines, shows that they are not prepared to give Natal matters the consideration they merit.

The Government has Natal supporters.

Very probably it is the action of those supporters which prevents Natal matters being properly considered. The country will have to pay for these things in the long run. Natal being so far from the “shank end,” its matters are not under the personal cognisance of the Minister, and do not get that prompt and immediate attention which they deserve. The fact remains that the narrowing of harbour entrance has been followed by results which should have been foreseen. It is an illustration of the inability of the Government to attend to all the business it undertakes. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has only a few minutes to spare for the Durban Harbour, whereas the whole time of an able man is required to control it. The principal port of the Union —the Liverpool of South Africa—

No, no.

Yes—is in danger, and Government is to blame.

who seconded the motion, said he did not accuse the Union Government of being responsible for the condition of Durban Harbour prior to Union. The blocks used for strengthening the breakwater only weighed from five tons to seven tons, and were much too light.

Yes, that is the trouble.

said these blocks were shifted. It was pointed out that the blocks were too light, but unfortunately the then Natal Government did not rise to the occasion, and failed to take the necessary steps.

But the same condition of things had existed since Union. What was wanted there was blocks weighing from 30 to 35 tons. A year or so ago the Government were induced to take some steps, but, unfortunately, it was found that the crane they had got was practically of no use.

During 1913 a cyclone took place in the Indian Ocean, and the tail of that cyclone visited Durban, in the shape of enormous seas, which damaged the end of the South Breakwater. This damage was not repaired at the time as it ought to have been The consequence was that, when in the early part of this year another storm of a similar nature took place, it did infinitely more damage than it had done before. He was sorry that it should have been necessary to place such a motion as this on the paper, but he would point out that the matter was not merely a Natal matter, but a South African matter. Natal was the principal port of the Union, in spite of what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) might think or say. There was more traffic done in Natal than at all the other ports put together. (“No.”) It was a fact that the tonnage handled in Natal was greater than the tonnage handled in all the other ports of the Union. As regarded the width of the entrance, he must confess that he did not entirely agree with the last speaker. The Natal Harbour Works were completed after many years of controversy and discussion. Mr. Escombe, to whom great credit had been given, and ought to be given, in connection with the development of the Natal Harbour, was of opinion that the south breakwater should be much longer than the north breakwater: but Mr. Methven, who was the engineer at the time, took an opposite view, and said that the South Breakwater should be only a little further out than the North Breakwater. The service of independent experts was taken, and these gentlemen decided that Mr. Methven’s ideas were the correct ones, if the harbour were to be made as safe and secure as possible. He hoped that the Minister when he replied would be able to tell them that attention was being given to the matter. He would urge upon him that, if he intended to do anything in connection with the Natal Harbour, he should take the best advice it was possible to get in South Africa. Mr. Methven was still in Durban, and had studied the matter thoroughly. It was very necessary that larger blocks should be put down, and the damage that had taken place should be repaired. It was also necessary to guard the South Breakwater to a greater extent than had been done in the past.

said he was rather disappointed at the attitude adopted by the hon. member who introduced this motion and the spirit in which he had done so. The charge he had brought, that matters affecting Natal—and in this charge he had included the Government—were viewed with hostility, he would only characterise as being entirely without foundation. (Hear, hear.) He did not suppose there was anyone in that House, and certainly there was no member of the Government, who did not recognise the outstanding importance of keeping in a sound and efficient condition the important harbour of Durban. He was not going over all the details of the hon. member’s speech, but he would take one or two salient facts. Let him say, before he went further, that he was not surprised if speeches like that which had been made by the hon. member this afternoon, criticisms such as this, samples of which they often saw in the public Press, were published throughout the length and breadth of the land, people who had business with the port of Natal should become nervous, and quite unnecessarily.

The fact was that there had been a great deal of unwarranted criticism and a great deal of erroneous information scattered abroad in regard to this matter, and not only had the Administration itself been most unfairly criticised in regard to its actions, but an injustice had been done to Durban and the state of its harbour, an injustice which might have a serious effect upon people who had got to do business with the port. The harbour entrance, particularly since the storm that took place a few months ago, was in an unsatisfactory condition, and although that was so he was informed by his advisers, whose information he must take, that the harbour entrance was not in immediate danger. The condition of things was unsatisfactory, but there was no immediate danger, and in any case if there had been an unsatisfactory state of affairs there was no doubt that the responsibility lay mainly with the people who constructed that harbour. The hon. member for Durban, Berea, was perfectly right when he said that the root trouble was the construction of this breakwater with blocks which were a great deal too small and too light. He wished to attempt to place the correct information before the country in regard to this matter, as to which hardly a week passed without something erroneous being scattered abroad. The Harbour Advisory Engineer, a gentleman in regard to whose competence and capacity in these matters there was not the slightest doubt—he meant Mr. Nicholson—advised him that he had made very careful investigations at Durban, and that none of these blocks had been washed into the fairway, and that the soundings which had been taken so far had never shown better navigable water than there was at present. If the harbour were in danger now the responsibility rested with those who constructed it. The position at present was that after this storm which took place he at once sent Mr. Nicholson to Durban to investigate the whole matter. That gentleman investigated the whole matter most carefully. Since then he had had instructions in conjunction with a number of other people to go into the whole question with a view of taking such action as he might advise should be taken in order to see that the matter was properly attended to and the harbour placed as soon as possible in a proper condition of safety. Mr. Nicholson had gone into the whole thing carefully with the local harbour officials, and the position was that the existing breakwater head, he was informed, could not be satisfactorily repaired. It had been damaged and undermined to a certain extent. Care should be taken not to spread about reports which were detrimental to the harbour.

asked the Minister if there was any truth in the report that concrete blocks had been washed into the fairway?

replied that the report was not correct.

said that as the Minister of Railways and Harbours had not attempted to refute any of the statements that he (Mr. Fawcus) had made he did not think it was right for him to style them as being erroneous. They were dissatisfied with the present state of Durban harbour, and they had every reason to be so. But as the Minister had given his assurance that the matter would receive proper attention he would ask leave to withdraw the motion.

said: The plan was to strengthen the existing structure from about 200 feet in-shore and to run the head of the pier slightly to the east of the breakwater, and then finish by placing 30-ton blocks in position. Pending the carrying out of this work, work of a temporary measure was being undertaken when weather permitted. 20-ton blocks wore being deposited in order to strengthen the present structure. The large concrete blocks of 30 tons were now being made, and the crane suitable for this class of work was on its way to Durban. A preliminary estimate of the cost fixed the sum at £50,000, but before the work was finished it would probably reach £70,000. By the time the work was completed the harbour would be placed in a satisfactory state. In the interests of Durban Harbour, he thought it most unfortunate that erroneous reports should be circulated.

said that there was nothing in his speech which had been refuted by the Minister. He regarded the Minister’s statement, however, as satisfactory, but wished that the steps now being taken had been taken earlier.

The motion was by leave withdrawn.

moved the following resolution: That in the opinion of this House the combination of the office of Minister of Finance with any other office is not in the public interest. The mover said he did not think there would be two opinions about the merits of the motion. The Minister of Finance had said the other day that it was an excellent thing that he should be in charge of the several departments, because as Minister of Finance he was supposed to check the expenditure of those departments. Therefore he (the Minister of Finance) was supposed to know the secrets of those departments, and was therefore the better able to check them. If that were so, he (Mr. Fremantle) wondered why the Minister of Finance did not take the responsibility of all the other offices, and in addition to those he might also take that of the Auditor-General, because that official also needed to know the secrets connected with the expenditure in those departments. He (Mr. Fremantle) did not think it was in the interests of the country that they should have gone as far as they had done in this matter. Personally, he was of opinion that the Minister of Finance could not properly be the Minister of Defence, because the amount of work which that office entailed took away the attention which should be given to other departments of which he was the head. The Department of the Interior in itself involved a great deal of work, but with the addition of other offices of great responsibility it exceeded the limit of any Minister in that House, no matter how able he might be He wished to indicate what the duties of a Minister of Finance were in order to show they were sufficient to engage the whole attention of the best man in that House. The Estimates alone, he considered, involved a great deal more work than what they showed signs of having received. Amounts were found placed on the Estimates which it was never intended to go on with, and which if the items had been properly scrutinised ought never to have appeared, as they only added to the swollen appearance of the expenditure. Then again, he maintained that the spending departments of a Government ought to be individually controlled by the Minister: that as regards revenue Estimates it was necessary for a Minister of Finance to have his fingers on the pulse of the country, and to know more than a little of business conditions in the world in general, and that such matters could not be picked up just before making a speech. Then there was the broad question of taxation which demanded the Minister’s personal attention. The settling of the policy of the Union was a task not lightly to be undertaken, if it was to be undertaken at all. Many problems connected with the debt had not been gone into because there had not been time. There was an enormous amount of work in connection with the business of the country which fell within the duty of the Minister of Finance, much legislation on such matters as company law was long overdue, and a great deal of that work should have been undertaken shortly after the Union. It was work which a Finance Minister should have been anxious to undertake, and the whole commercial world of South Africa would continue to suffer so long as the Minister of Finance took upon himself tasks which it was impossible for him to carry out. Further, the Treasury had, or ought to have, a general control of the Civil Service, but instead of a carefully thought out scheme the Minister had led the House to consent to a makeshift Civil Service law which was expensive and inefficient. All these problems instead of being grasped and settled, wore dealt with in this opportunist fashion, because the Minister had not time to think anything out, and all this work would have to be done over again. They were leaving overdrafts of their work for future Parliaments to do. That concentration of power in the hands of one man was an evil, as had been proved in other countries where such a state of affairs had existed. The hon. member went on to instance cases which, he alleged, showed that the Minister of Finance had not had time to study the duties attaching to that office. In that connection he mentioned that the Minister in a speech earlier in the session had said it would be unfair to publish the details of the Customs tariff at that time. The Minister did not know that the tariff would come into effect immediately the statement was made.

was understood to say that he never made such a statement.

said his hearing must have misled him, or the hon. Minister had been wrongly reported. But he would accept the denial. Proceeding, he said that the Minister induced the Minister of Railways and Harbours to move an amendment to his own land tax proposals, which the Minister of Finance himself discovered afterwards was meaningless; it was left to the hon. member for Jeppe to find that out. That showed things were not properly considered. Then the hon. Minister made wrong statements regarding Canada paying off its debts; he did not know what England or Canada was doing in relation to finance. What was anyone to think of a Finance Minister who did not know what was being done in an elementary matter by the Finance Ministers of England and of Canada? He (Mr. Fremantle) could give many more instances to prove his point. He did not wish to make that a party matter. (Oh! oh!) If he did he would say, “Leave it as it is, and leave it to the country to judge whether its interests are being attended to. There was no one in the country, he added, who cared about the finances of the country, who would not say that the Prime Minister was mismanaging by allowing the existing state of affairs to continue. If the Ministry would give an assurance that the question would be inquired into, and attended to, he would be happy to withdraw the motion. If that was not done, he hoped the Ministry would agree to the House expressing its opinion on the matter in a division. But he did not want to divide the House, and would rather the Minister would say that the matter would be carefully gone into, and that that mistake which had continued two years—two years too long—would be brought to an end. It was holding that view that he moved the resolution.

seconded.

was putting the resolution when the time for suspension of business arrived.

May I ask if the Government can give the assurance asked for?

was understood to say that the business would be resumed at 8 p.m., and asked for a date to which the debate could be adjourned.

It was agreed that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved, under item No. 52, “Boots and shoes,” after “shoes,” to insert “the minimum not to apply to boots, shoes, shoettes and all other footwear for children from size No. 0 up to and including size No. 6, and boot and shoe uppers, tops and soles therefor; goloshes, rubbers and sand boots and shoes, plimsolls, gum and wading boots.” The mover said he wished to remove an admitted anomaly under the tariff, and pointed out that this view was supported by the South African Manufacturers’ Association and the Industries Commission. He had taken his amendment word for word from a recommendation of the Commission. The Commission went so far as to say that a case had been made out in this connection, and thought that these classes of goods “shall not come under the minimum tariff.”

asked the Minister to accept the amendment. So much a pair on these goods amounted to about 60 per cent. of the cost where they were made.

I am sorry. I will gladly, my hon. friend, especially as this point has just occurred to me, that, so far as I am aware, this is the first time the pundits on the other side have expressed their appreciation of the report of the Industries Commission. (Laughter.) It would mean a serious loss of revenue, and I cannot afford it. Continuing, he said that, so far as the second part of the amendment was concerned, “Shoe uppers, tops, and soles,” his friend seemed to be under a misapprehension, as these goods only fell under the general ad valorem rate of 15 per cent.

pointed out that a hardship existed, and that, if the Minister agreed, he would only lose about £3,000.

said he would like to ask whether there was to be no reasonableness on the part of the Minister. They had on the tariff an admitted anomaly. What were they there for if it were not to use the expert knowledge some of them possessed to bring about a reasonable tariff? He contended that the tariff had been proved to apply in a very harsh manner to the lower classes of boots and shoes. He hoped the Minister was not going to take up the attitude that he would not give in on any point. The amendment was brought forward in no spirit of enmity. The matter had been discussed by the Chamber of Commerce at Cape Town, and he had been requested to bring it forward.

put Mr. Baxter’s amendment, which was negatived.

Under class 2, Mixed Rates, printed matter,

moved to delete in item 53, “printed matter,” sub-items, wrapping papers and blotting papers.

said he wished to go a step further. Why did not the Minister put all the items on a 15 per cent. basis? They were told that it was done for the purposes of readjustment. The importation of printed matter in 1908 was £140,000; in 1909, £120,000; in 1911, £159,000; in 1912, £172,000: and in 1913, £180,000. The tariff had been in operation all those years. It simply worked in this way: as a tax and a handicap on local industries and business. Let them take the case of the biscuit-makers. Their labels had to be printed here, or they must pay 25 per cent., and the same thing applied to other business people. They had to pay 25 percent. extra on all the printed matter they used. The Minister was creating a monopoly under the proposed tariff. If the Minister would refer to class 5, ”Fee,” he would find item 157 read: “Catalogues or price lists of foreign firms, addressed to importers, merchants, or manufacturers.” That was going to bring about a fine state of affairs. The Minister must know that the importer or merchant had two capacities—as an importer, and as a private individual. Did the Post Office differentiate between a Colonial catalogue and an imported catalogue. The tax was simply a tax on local industries and local business.

put the Minister’s amendment, which was carried.

wished to move an amendment to include in the tariff “seed pockets, filled or unfilled, for retail trade.”

ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that no hon. member could move an increase to the tariff.

asked the reason for the increase from 2d. to 3d. per 1b. on catalogues or pricelists of Colonial firms printed and posted abroad to individuals in South Africa?

said it was a recommendation of the Industries Commission. The whole position of the printing business was investigated by the Commission, and to avoid a number of anomalies those recommendations had been made. On what grounds the recommendations were made he did not know. They were told that there would be no additional revenue, but that readjustment was advisable.

moved to substitute the word “will” for “may ” in the following sentence: “A rebate of 3 per cent. ad valorem may be granted on goods, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom and reciprocating British Colonies.” The word “will” appeared in the old Act, and the substitution of “may” was apparently a printed error.

said that in regard to British Colonies the preference was not a rigid arrangement, and we might get out of it.

The amendment was agreed to.

Class 2, as amended, was adopted.

asked why phonographs and magiclanterns were put in this class when previously they paid only 15 per cent.? These formed the cheapest types of amusement, but pianos paid only 15 per cent.

I hope we shall not argue again the question of the poor man’s amusement. Surely we discussed it enough last night. (Ministerial cheers.)

The item was agreed to.

On item 58,

moved the omission of “padded quilts and coats, jackets, or other apparel made of blanketing or baize, not elsewhere enumerated.” He said originally this high duty was meant to apply only to blankets and rugs.

The amendment was negatived and the item was agreed to.

asked if the Minister had carefully considered whether he was going to get £40,000 from this item?

I think it is rather a sanguine estimate. It is worked up by the department, but I doubt whether we shall get it.

You won’t get half.

I hope it won’t be so bad as that.

said they were going to stimulate by this high duty the enterprise of everybody who wanted to humbug the Customs. People now paid 15 per cent., but when they were charged 25 per cent. they would endeavour to get the clothing through without paying duty at all—(hear, hear)—and it was the simplest thing in the world to do. Everybody who went for a trip across the water would bring out clothes to last them two or three years, and they would also bring out clothing for their friends. There were thousands of ways in which the duty might be evaded. He did not think the Minister would get any more than if he charged 15 per cent. The tailors did not expect to get any increased trade through the enhanced duty, for a man who had a craze to get his clothes made in Bond-street would continue to do so. Sir Edgar moved the deletion of the item.

said that according to the strict reading of the item, if he ordered his clothes direct from England, it would come in free—(cries of “No”) but if he ordered his clothes through a tailor it would be liable to a duty of 25 per cent.

said he wished to know what would be the difference if he ordered the clothes through a local tailor who had it made in England?

said, he did not wish to teach the hon. member for Roodepoort grammar, as the hon. member did not want instruction from him in that subject. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth was afraid of smuggling, but that was a general difficulty, and applied to all high duties. That argument had been brought up against the various increases.

said, he thought the object of that item was to prevent bespoke clothing being imported, to some extent, in order to encourage the colonial man. From what he knew of the trade it would curtail the trade very considerably. It would drive many people to smuggling, and would drive others, because they could not pay that 25 per cent., to order what had been described as “reach-me-downs,” on which they would only pay 15 per cent. The Minister could depend upon it that he would not get £40,000, unless he had been getting double that amount before.

called attention to the item, “Fireworks of all descriptions,” and said that a tax of 25 per cent. on that commodity would kill the business.

said there had always been that rate.

said they were getting new piers in the principal coast towns, and if the Minister would reduce the tariff he would get double the amount of revenue.

reverted to the question of bespoke clothing, and said he could not help thinking that what the Minister calculated was so negligible that that item might be eliminated altogether. He (the speaker) was a moderate protectionist, and he thought that 15 per cent. was quite sufficient. He admitted he had a fad for having his clothes from England. He had been told by manufacturers that they did not send the best cloth to the colonies. They call it colonial cloth. And although there might be good tailors’ cutters here they had not got the best cloth. The hon. Minister knew that, and it was asking too much to put a 25 per cent. protection on that kind of thing. The Minister would not get more by the increase than he would get with a moderate 15 per cent.

supported the contention of the hon. member for Roodepoort regarding the language in which the item was explained. As it stood it was difficult to understand.

suggested that the Minister should take the New Zealand definition, which read: “Clothing made to the order of a resident of the Union and intended for individual use of a citizen, whether imported by himself or otherwise.”

said he thought the object of the increased tax on bespoke clothing was to assist the bespoke clothing trade of the Union, and he did not think it would gain that object.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end “not including surgical instruments, forks, spoons, knives and cutlery except of gold or silver, nor articles wherein gold, silver, or plate is used to an extent not exceeding 25 per cent. of the whole article.” Proceeding, he said he moved the amendment in the same spirit in which he moved the amendment in connection with boots and shoes. The item as it stood said “gold and silver plate and plated ware,” that was all it said. He would defy anyone in business to know what that meant. He could understand “gold and silver plate.” That was quite obvious. But what was plated ware? With regard to that there was no definition to suggest that the article should be made solely from those things, or if not it would come under a different item. There were innumerable articles in the fancy trade in which plate entered into the composition. There were many things where there were bits of silver round such as walking sticks and umbrellas. Were those to be rated at the 25 per cent. or at the ordinary rate? He wanted to make that quite clear, and for that reason had moved the amendment. He did not want a tariff to go through which was going to be complicated, and which in its operation might draw in goods not intended for the special tax, so that there would be much dearer rates on them when they came into the Union than at present. He thought it was a reasonable amendment, and it could be readily adopted.

said there were many thousands of articles in the ordinary course of business which had some portion of plated ware about them. How were they to manage in regard to those if that item went through without some explanation? There was another point. The hon. Minister had said those increases would not increase the cost of living, but there was no white family in the country which did not use plated spoons and forks, etc.

That is not gold and silver plated ware.

said spoons were plated ware, and there was a great quantity of forks and knives that had plated handles.

said there was going to be more confusion about that than about any other item in the tariff. Most of the ordinary spoons and forks were silver plated or nickle plated. They were going to tax nickle plate.

No, gold and silver plate.

That is exactly where it comes in They took the hon. Minister’s word and later they would get into the hands of the officials who would stretch the definition. At the present time they were paying on plated stuff and had been ever since the tariff was introduced. He could see no reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment.

said that the Dutch version made it much clearer. There was no question about it that it only referred to gold and silver plate and gold and silver plated ware. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, had been casting defiance broadcast and had defied him (the Minister) to say without chemical analysis whether there was 25 per cent, gold or silver in these things. They could not do that unless they melted down the plate, and if the plate were melted down there would be very little left after the melting.

said he did not know that he had been hurling defiance at all. He was endeavouring to put a plain argument as a plain business man and had asked how they were going to define when it became plated ware and when it did not He purposely put in 25 per cent. because in this particular class of goods very little came up to the 25 per cent. standard. They would be simply inviting the Customs authorities to rate the whole of these goods at 25 per cent. What was more, the Customs authorities wanted very little invitation, because they were always looking for something extra. Every year the merchant was expected to pay on something new simply because of the wording. Because of the general nature of the wording of this item the whole of the country would be called upon to pay 25 per cent. on this particular class of goods. But the Minister with his stiff-neckedness would not listen to reason and he supposed that nothing on earth would make him move. He (Mr. Baxter) had never seen such an exhibition of obstinacy.

asked the Minister to consider the request that had been made. It was bound to lead to any amount of trouble, and if this proposal were adopted everything would have to pay 25 per cent.

Only silver plate.

And plated ware.

Gold and silver.

It says “and plated ware.” In conclusion, he said he thought it would save a great deal of trouble if they gave a clear definition.

supported the protest against the duty on surgical instruments, which nowadays were all silverplated.

referred to the case of a set of harness. What was going to be paid on that? Then there was a case of a biscuit barrel, unfortunately silver mounted. What was going to be paid on that? There would be more trouble in this clause than any other because of its indefiniteness. He moved the deletion of the words “and plated ware,” because it placed them too much in the hands of the Customs officials.

put the case of a poor individual who brought in a little consignment of tin cans. That was plated ware. What would be the position if this man kicked at paying the 25 per cent. and was taken to law on the subject. If the Minister meant gold and silver, let him say so. Galvanised wire—perhaps his hon. friends on the other side did not know it—was plated wire. That wire will be covered by this interpretation.

If that is the point raised, I am prepared to have “gold and silver” repeated again, though I do not see the need.

I admit that is a concession—

It is no concession. He suggested that after “and” the words “gold and silver” be inserted.

I would like to add “but not including cutlery.”

It docs not matter.

My hon. friend knows nothing about it. He withdrew his previous amendment, to delete “and plated ware”, and moved instead after “plate and” to insert “gold and silver.”

The amendment was agreed to.

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

moved: In the note following item No. 72, line 1, to omit “may”, and to substitute “will.”

Agreed to.

Class 3, as amended, was passed.

On class 4, item 73, Acetylene gas lamps (spare parts for manufacture of),

moved to substitute the word “metal” for the word “spare.”

This was agreed to.

On item 77, Assay apparatus for dry assaying and assay mebor,

asked why the word “dry” was included. He moved to omit “for dry assaying.”

The amendment was negatived.

On the item 85, Canvas in the piece for sail and tentmakers.

moved that the words “for sail and tent makers” be omitted. He asked how the Customs authorities would be able to tell that the canvas was intended for one of those purposes.

asked how it would be possible when the canvas came through the Customs to say whether it was for sail or tent makers. Canvas was used for a great many things— for water bottles and so on.

said he understood the tariff was for the benefit of local manufacturers. Why, then, should not the manufacturers benefit by the tariff? He thought the Minister would be well advised to accept the motion of the hon. member for Kimberley.

pointed out that canvas was largely used in connection with wagon-building.

moved that the item be altered to read, “canvas as used by sail and tent-makers.”

asked whether the Minister intended that canvas in rolls was going to come in for 3 per cent. if for tents, but if it was to be used for a farm wagon or any other purpose it should pay 15 per cent.? He did not think it had ever been the intention that the farmer who was going to use canvas for any ordinary purpose should pay 15 per cent., whereas if he wanted the canvas for a tent for a picnic he would only pay 3 per cent.

The amendment moved by Mr. Oliver was agreed to, that by Mr. Griffin dropped.

On item 114, Machinery.

moved to include mechanical filters for water clarification. He thought the use of these filters ought to be encouraged.

The amendment of the hon. member for Newlands was negatived.

moved the deletion of item 104, Hair; hog, camel, and badger, for broom and brushmaking, for the purpose of inserting it in the free list. Hair was admitted free.

The amendment was negatived.

moved in item No. 105, after “springs”, to insert “and plywood.”

This was also negatived.

Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort) moved in the note following item No. 146, line 1, to omit “may” and to substitute “will.”

Agreed to.

Class 4, as amended, was agreed to.

On Class 5, free, item 151,

moved that organs and band instruments for municipalities or similar public authorities be placed in the free list. It was only fair, he said, that band instruments imported by municipalities should be treated in the same way as those imported for Volunteer Corps. Municipalities should be encouraged to provide cheap music for the people.

who supported the amendment, said Johannesburg Town Council was importing an organ, which would cost £12,000, and the duty on it would be about £1,800.

also appealed to the Minister to accept the amendment. The organ of the Johannesburg municipality would cost about £12,000, and he thought the Johannesburg taxpayers paid enough to be relieved of the duty.

said this duty had been paid all these years by municipalities, but now, from the rich municipality of Johannesburg, which could afford a £12,000 organ, they had these pieteous appeals. He did not think it was a case for departing from the old practice.

asked on how many municipal organs had this duty been paid? The Minister of Finance, remembering the old adage that “Music hath charms,” ought to welcome the idea of Johannesburg importing an organ.

moved that band instruments for Boy Scouts be allowed to come in free.

And Girl Scouts?

They don’t have bands; they blow their own trumpets. (Laughter.)

said it was rather unkind of the Minister to refuse to make this little concession to municipalities, because his particular department did not pay any rates in Johannesburg, although it let some of its buildings to the public for rent.

said that during the long consideration of that Bill the Minister had not given way on one single thing.

Oh, yes.

Oh, that was a little trifle! The hon. Minister should take into consideration the backing behind him. On that occasion the hon. members on the cross-benches had the support of the hon. member for Vrededorp.

For the first time.

The first part of the amendment, moved by Mr. Baxter, was declared negatived.

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

Ayes—22.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Botha, Christian Lourens

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Geldenhuys Lourens

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Sampson, Henry William

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Morris Alexander and H. A Wyndham, tellers

Noes—55.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullman, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert.

Louw, George Albertyn

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

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

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 Willielmus Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

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

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers and the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, were negatived.

On item 153,

moved a small amendment to insert after “periodicals” the words “not elsewhere enumerated.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On item 158,

moved to insert after the word “organs” the words “band instruments,” which would allow the instruments of the Salvation Army and such religious bodies to be included.

Quite right.

The amendment was agreed to.

On item 185,

moved to add at the end “including glass cases for exhibiting same.”

The amendment was negatived.

On item 187, Sulphur and iron pyrites in bulk,

asked a question regarding Kynochs.

said that Kynochs, near Durban, imported not sulphur, but pyrites, for the purpose of making sulphuric acid, and that was passed as a raw product of industry, and came under the free list, like sulphur.

asked if it was for the purpose of manufacturing dynamite, and how the other factories did?

said the other factories imported sulphur, and from that manufactured sulphuric acid for their own purposes, and also for the sale of the article. Pyrites were used by Kynochs.

on item 192, moved to add at the end of “wood meal and wood pulp” the words “wood in shooks for boxes.” Why in the name of goodness should he leave this thing out? It was particularly hard on the fruit people. He went on to say that the boxes made from the colonial wood were not considered satisfactory, and referred to the dairy industry in this connection. It was said that the smell of the wood got into the butter.

Is that so?

They could remove the smell.

People want what they ask for. Continuing, he said that altogether this was a very unsatisfactory thing.

said that in the cases where boxes were exported there would be a rebate of the duty, and when they were imported into this country. Now his hon. friend wanted him to go further, and if he did so this would result in the dislocation of a number of industries.

said that they knew of the prejudice which existed with regard to goods made in South Africa. One reason for this prejudice was the way in which the South African goods were packed—the boxes were not quite as neat as those which came from oversea.

asked whether he was right in assuming that the Minister was going to make this rebate with regard to the fruit boxes clear in the Bill?

replied in the affirmative.

referred to the growth of the fruit industry, and the competition which they had to meet from other countries. Because of this competition it was a great hardship that the fruit-growers of this country should have to pay on their boxes. He was glad that the Minister was going to meet them a little way. He referred to the boxes that were sent over the country. Some of the boxes cost 6d. and 7d., and on these boxes a duty of ¾d. to 1d. was paid, and they knew very well that these boxes were never returned. What profit did the grower make when his fruit was sold at a very low rate?

pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture got his wood packs in free.

Don’t be personal.

I don’t want to be personal, but we have to bring some of these things home. Continuing, he said that with regard to the rebate on these boxes it would be very easy to mix up the boxes, and get a rebate on the South African made box. He also referred to cases where fruit was not allowed to be exported and the man had to sell his goods for the best price that he could get on the local market. He would not get his rebate on the box in that case.

said he believed it would be possible for them to go further at another stage, and he hoped that that was a matter the Minister would consider before they reached that stage. It was a matter that seriously concerned the producers who had to box their products. They were doing the best they could to send their products out in such a way that they could compete with the products of other countries, and the tax was a very severe one. He thought the general policy adopted by the House was that where they could legitimately do so, they should encourage their industries.

said the farmers were asking for a reduction of duty on something that they used. He would like some information as to the number of people engaged in that business of box-making. He wanted some assurance that the large number of men engaged in making those boxes would not be deleteriously affected. He merely wished to put in a word for those who might be engaged in the industry.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was negatived.

moved that ground nuts be added to the free list. He said that these nuts paid 15 per cent., and that they were very largely used by oil factories. There was no doubt that at the present time the small factories were suffering severely from having to pay that duty, and were unable to compete with Delagoa Bay for the Transvaal trade. It was a great handicap to the Union to have to pay that duty.

put Mr. Henwood’s amendment, and declared it to be negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—16

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Sampson. Henry William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

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

Noes—53.

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 Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

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

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

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

The amendment was therefore negatived.

moved the addition of “lacquer for preserve tins” to the free list. He said that several canning factories had been charged 2s. per imperial gallon on lacquer, which was the same duty as that imposed on varnish.

The amendment was negatived.

Class 5, as amended, was agreed to.

On class 6, General ad valorem rate, 15 per cent.,

moved the substitution of “will” for “may” in the note, which was as follows: “A rebate of 3 per cent. ad valorem may be granted on goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom and reciprocating British colonies.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Class 6, as amended, was agreed to.

On paragraphs (a) and (b), as follows: (a) That there shall be charged, levied and collected for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to any exemptions hereinafter mentioned and to any rebates and conditions which may be provided, or any arrangement made, under the authority of a law passed during the present session of Parliament or of any law relating to the management of the Customs, Customs duties in respect of goods imported into the Union according to the tariff set out hereunder, (b) That such tariff shall be in substitution for the tariff of Customs duties at present in force in respect of goods so imported.

said he did not propose to go on with the resolutions (c) and (d) to-night as they were somewhat contentious.

said they were bound to vote against these resolutions because they believed the Minister was following a wrong policy in raising additional taxation by means of the Customs, when he had refrained from imposing a tax on the unimproved value of land, which was a far more equitable means of raising revenue. (Hear, hear.)

The paragraphs were put and declared carried.

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

Ayes—46.

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 Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

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

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Wessels. Daniel Hendrik Willem

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

Noes—20.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Sampson, Henry William

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Walton, Edgar Harris

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

Paragraphs (a) and (b) were accordingly agreed to.

moved to report progress.

asked the Minister of Finance if it was the intention to bring up the Land Tax Bill, and if so, could he give a date?

I can not now.

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

moved the second reading of the Lunacy and Leprosy Laws Amendment Bill which, he said, was to make provision for the transfer of lunatics or lepers from one asylum to another. It was the intention of the Government to centralise some of those institutions, and it would be necessary to get power to transfer. It was to re-invest power with the Government.

heartily supported the hon. member in regard to that Bill, but urged that there should be some provision made so that no leper or lunatic could be moved from his friends or surroundings without his permission or that of his friends. It would be a hard thing to banish people from their friends and relations in that way. He would move that in Committee.

supported the last speaker, and said it would be a hard thing if the Minister were to be allowed to send the lepers wherever he thought fit.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for Committee stage for to-morrow.

moved the second reading of the Justices of the Peace and Oaths Bill, and said that the object of the Bill was to get uniformity in the system of field-cornets of the Union, especially in the Transvaal and the Free State. He went on to deal with the different classes of field-cornets, of which there were five different kinds in the Union. First, they had the old field-cornet, who was really a military officer, revived in the Defence Force. Then there was the field-cornet in the Cape, who was a sort of official assistant to the magistrate, and was not paid a salary. In Natal the field-cornets were really registration officers, and came under the Department of the Interior. In the Free State field-cornets received a salary of £75 a year, and came under the Minister of Agriculture; while in the Transvaal, where they were mainly stock inspectors, they drew a salary of about £300 a year. On the strong representations of the Minister of Defence and the Commandant of the Forces of the inadvisability of having officials performing different duties under this title, he had considered the question, and he thought the better thing would be to place the non-military field-cornets in the same position all over the Union. He had decided upon the system in the Cape, which had worked very well. The question of a title was a difficult matter, because some of these people had borne the title for many years, and were very proud of it. He had decided upon the title of Justice of the Peace. This title held by these persons at present was rather a misnomer, because they were really Commissioners of Oaths. Justices of the Peace at present existing would retain their title; but in future appointments, the Government would appoint them as Commissioners of Oaths. There were certain people who would, ex officio, be Commissioners of Oaths.

The country attorney was generally very desirous of being appointed a Justice of the Peace, and therefore he had made provision that all notaries public should be Commissioners of Oaths. If a person was qualified by law to subscribe to notarial documents, then he should he qualified to take oaths. It was also provided that the Mayor of every municipality and the chairman of every Village Board should also be ex officio Commissioners of Oaths. That existed in the Cape to-day, but not in the other Provinces. It was only provided merely for the purpose of allowing them to attest affidavits and other solemn declarations. A certain number of Government officials would also be ex-officio Commissioners of Oaths. The reason that was done was to enable them to take affidavits. The Act did not take away the rights of any person. He had made provision that all the people concerned would retain existing rights, but new Justices of the Peace would have to be Justices of the Peace in fact, as well as name. The Bill made provision that all field-cornets and assistant field-cornets should “ipso facto” become Justices of the Peace, and continue to exercise their functions as before. There was a provision about Liquor Licensing Courts perhaps strictly not covered by the title of the Bill.

At present members of these Courts had to be J.P.'s, and if a person were appointed a member who was not already a J.P. he was made one. There was no reason for this—(hear, hear)—and he wished to include a provision stipulating that a member of a Licensing Court need not be a J.P. All the J.P.’s would come under the Department of Justice, would be put on the same footing, and be treated in the same way. As to field-cornets, it was felt that in a big district, where magistrates lived long distances away, there should be representatives of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Field-cornets performed various duties, and he at first intended to try to codify those duties, but a good many of them were done administratively, and he considered it best not to codify the duties, but simply to state that the new Justices of the Peace were officials to assist the magistrates in carrying out law and order and to act under the instructions of the magistrates.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for the Committee stage to-morrow.