from C. Currie, who received a pension of £120, of which £50 was commuted, for consideration of his case.

from D. J. du Toit, whose conviction for contravening the Defence Act was quashed by the Supreme Court, for consideration of the losses sustained by him and for relief.

from E. W. Sprawson, formerly Director of Telegraphs, for increase of pension.

from inhabitants of Lichtenburg, for remission of Repatriation Debts.

announced that the Governor-General, on behalf of the King, had given his assent to the following Bills:

Unauthorised Expenditure (1912-’13) Act.

Matches Duty Act.

Lunacy and Leprosy Laws Amendment Act.

Workmen’s Wages Protection Act.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that white labourers earning from 3s. to 5s. per day, employed by the Railway Department at Wellington, although frequently called upon to work until 10 and 11 o’clock at night, loading up and despatching fruit during February, March and April last, have not been paid for this overtime worked; and (?) whether he will make inquiries into the matter with a view to seeing that all the men get paid for all the overtime they have worked?

This matter has already been brought to notice, and instructions given for the omission to be rectified immediately. The non-payment of the overtime was due to a misunderstanding; but had the employees concerned represented the matter to the Administration at the time, payment in respect of overtime worked would have been made without delay.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that there are very few officers of Dutch South African birth in senior positions on open lines in the railway service, senior positions being taken as those carrying a salary of £500 per annum or over; and, if so, what action is being taken in the matter; (2) how many officers there are on the open lines staff in receipt of salaries, apart from local, allowances, of £500 per annum and over, and how many of these are Dutch South Africans by birth, distinguishing in each, case between officers who are engineers by profession and others; and (3) whether the examination referred to in section 6, Act No. 28 of 1912, has yet been prescribed; and, if so, whether the Minister will lay a copy of the regulations on the Table of the House?

(1) Yes; but this is due to circumstances over which neither the Government nor the Administration has control. Until recent years comparatively few Dutch South Africans have taken up railway work as a career, either in the clerical or professional branches, consequently very few have been available for promotion in the grades from which the senior officers are recruited. Prior to Union efforts were made to induce South African youths to take up railway work and to acquire an all-round knowledge of the work and qualify for promotion. A large number entered the service of the several Administrations and especially that of the Cape Government Railways; but after spending a few years on the railways a large proportion of them invariably left for other spheres; some, particularly in the Cape, transferring to other Government Departments on passing the Civil Service examination, and others being attracted to more congenial employment or to work offering better immediate inducements than the railway service. Partly on this account, but largely owing to the development in traffic and to the rapid expansion of the railways in the interior the supply of experienced railway men in South Africa has on several occasions been quite unequal to the demand. The pre-Union Administrations were therefore forced from time to time to obtain in large numbers men from oversea with experience of railway work, and at the date of Union the majority of the senior railway officers in the employ of the different Administrations were not South African born. The proportion of South African born officers holding senior positions is, however, automatically increasing year by year, and as time goes on the rate of increase will become more marked and more rapid than at present. In any senior appointments made at and since Union qualifications and merit have been the deciding factors. Officers occupying responsible positions in the railway service must not only be possessed of special qualifications and training, but must be men of considerable experience in railway work, and it should not be overlooked that all oversea officials holding such positions have been in South Africa for many years. For a number of years, and more particularly since Union, the clerical staff has been recruited almost entirely from South African youths of Dutch or English descent, who are being trained in railway work; and these present-day youths will provide the principal railway officers of the future, their advancement depending entirely upon their qualifications and the ability and energy they display. As regards technical, officers, arrangements are in force with the South African College whereby students who have passed their civil engineering course are afforded an opportunity of gaining practical experience in their profession on the railways in South Africa, and at the present time there are 13 student engineers in the Administration’s employ. Besides assisting Colonial youths to complete their professional training in this country, this arrangement should in time enable the Administration to recruit its engineers from the ranks of South African students. It is also part of the Administration’s policy to encourage apprentices in the mechanical department to continue their technical training and so qualify for advancement in their branch of the work.

(2) There are 140 officers on open lines in the service of the Railway Administration in receipt of substantive salaries of £500 and upwards. Of this number 21 are South African born, 11 being engineers, and some of the highest positions in the service are held by these officers. To ascertain which are of Dutch extraction it would be necessary to approach each officer individually, as the names alone cannot be taken as a reliable indication of nationality. I may say, however, that several of these officers are known to be wholly or partly of Dutch descent.

(3) The examination in both official languages, as provided for in section 6 of Act 28 of 1912 cannot be imposed until after the expiry of five years from the date of commencement of the Act, namely, 1st October, 1912. Details of the examination have not yet been prescribed, but the matter has for some time been engaging attention and is still under consideration. The educational qualifications required of candidates who enter the service in the salaried grades are laid down in Staff Regulation No. 5. The majority of the juniors entering the service in grades from which they will be able to qualify for senior appointments, as defined by the hon. member, have bilingual qualifications, and I may mention that during the last few years a considerable number of English-speaking officials of all grades, who have been stationed at centres where they have had an opportunity of doing so, have voluntarily taken steps to acquire a knowledge of the Dutch language.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether the farm Hope Homes, near Bethany Station, has been inspected by the Land Board, and what recommendation was made by the Board; (2) whether the farm has been allocated or leased to persons who are not owners of landed property, and, if so, to whom; and if not yet allocated or leased, why not; and (3) what is the size of each of the two parts into which the farm is divided?

(1), (2) and (3). Hope Homes is the collective name for five farms in the Bloemfontein district, viz., Kalkbult, No. 510 (area 1,447 morgen 28 square roods); Twyfesfontein, No. 513 (area 1,447 morgen 28 square roods); Zuurfontein, No. 190 (area 1,447 morgen 28 square roods); and Driekop, No. 512 (area 1,475 morgen 239 square roods). The Land Board, Orange Free State, has inspected and recommended the disposal of the land in terms of the Land Settlement Act, 1912, after re-survey into four portions. The survey has been completed, and the delay in gazetting the farms is due to the necessity for obtaining amended title, for which application has been submitted in terms of the relative law. The farms were previously held on lease for five years, which expired in August, 1913. The former lessees are still utilising the farms for grazing purposes on temporary leases.

asked the Prime Minister what was the total average monthly value of Government stock deposited during 1913 in accordance with the Cape laws against the issue of bank notes averaging in value over two and a quarter millions monthly throughout the Union.

The average monthly value of Government stock deposited during 1913, in terms of the Cape Banking Laws, was £1,770,232. The banking laws in the Transvaal, Orange Free State, and Natal do not require that any security should be deposited with the Government in respect of bank notes in circulation, although provision is made, in the respective laws to guard against an excessive note issue.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries, whether any attempt has been made by the Government to purchase or obtain land for the purpose of creating settlements for persons afflicted with miners’ phthisis, and, if so: (1) What land was considered; (2) where was it situated, and whether within or outside municipal areas; (3) who are the owners; (4) what was the price asked of the Government, and what was the price paid for the land by the present owners; and (5) to what use is the land being put at the present time?

(on behalf of the Minister of Mines and Industries) replied:

Land considered: (1) Transvaal Board: (a) Portions of Vlakplaats, No. 313, district of Heidelberg, (area 1,725 morgen). (b) Portions of Rooikraal, No. 257, district of Heidelberg (area 2,208 morgen), (c) Modderfontein, No. 46, district of Pretoria (area 2,600 morgen 212 square roods), (d) Rietvaliei, No. 60, district of Pretoria (area 1,951 morgen, 119 square roods), (e) Remaining extent of Koppiesfontein, No. 304, district of Heidelberg (area 681 morgen 182 square roods) (f) One-fifth share Rietkol, No. 543, district of Pretoria (area 953 morgen).

Where situated: (2) Heidelberg and Pretoria districts, situate outside municipal areas.

Owners: (3) (a) and (b) T. I. Norton. (c) Government, (d) Transvaal Property and Investment Company, and A. E. Adams, (e) Coronation Syndicate, Limited, (f) Modderfontein Proprietary Mines, Limited.

Price asked of Government: (4) (a) and (b) £6 10s. per acre, (c) £5 2s. 6d. per morgen (purchased at £5). (d) £5 per morgen. (e) £3 10s. per morgen, (f) £5 per morgen.

Price paid by present owners: (a) £15,000 with other properties. (b) £9,500. (c) £13,001 15s. 4d; (purchased by Government). (d) £3,714 with other property: (e) £12,000 with other property, (f) £3,000.

To what use is land being put at present time: (5) (a) (b) (d) (e) and (f): Cannot say without inspection, (c) Farm is being subdivided with a view to inviting applications for such holdings under the Land Settlement Act, 1912.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will take into consideration the prayer of the petition from the Rev. L. E. Brandt, chairman, on behalf of the Witwatersrand Church Council, presented to this House on the 16th instant, namely, that an efficient censorship of bioscope films may be established in Cape Town, that it may be made illegal to use other films than those passed by the board of censors, and that, to that end, Cape Town be made the sole port of entry for cinematograph films?

The control of matters of this nature seems more properly to be a responsibility of the Provincial Administrations. I am, therefore, causing the terms of the honourable member’s question to be communicated to the various Administrations.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will exercise the discretionary power given him under the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Act, and favourably consider the re-instatement with their old rates of pay of those employees who were notified by the Railway Administration before the 28th February last, that they would be taken back in the Service as opportunity offered, but were not re-employed until March (owing to the exigencies of the Service), and consequently under the Act are denied the full benefits accorded to others who also had the embargo removed, but were re-employed before the 28th February?

It is the intention of the Government to deal favourably, and in the direction indicated, with employees, provided for in sub-section 2 of section 3 of the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Act; and I may mention that a list of the men concerned is now in course of compilation, and will be considered as soon as it is possible to do so.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries how many men who have worked not less than two years or more than three years underground were compensated for miners’ phthisis during the period March to May, 1913, inclusive, and during the period March to May, 1914, respectively?

I must ask the honourable member to give me time to make inquiries in regard to this question.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether his attention has been called to the numerous evictions in the Orange Free State and Natal under the Natives Land Act, 1913. and, if so, what action, if any, does he propose to take?

The Government is aware that evictions of native tenants have taken place in the Orange Free State and Natal, but is not aware that such evictions have been numerous. Everything has been done and will continue to be done, pending the report of the Commission, to ensure that hardship to displaced natives is obviated, and such natives will as far as possible be assisted in their endeavours to find suitable conditions of re-settlement.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what area of land was purchased for the extension of Newlands platform, and what was the price paid?

Area purchased, 332 square roods 70 square feet; price paid, £2,600.

asked the Minister of Lands whether he is aware of certain experiments now being conducted by the authorities in German South-West Africa to locate underground water by means of electricity, and, if so, whether he will give instructions to the Irrigation Department to try the experiments in the Union?

Certain reports relating to experiments in connection with the location of underground water by electricity in German South-West Africa, appearing in the Press, have been noted. The matter will be investigated by the Irrigation Department.

asked the Minister of Justice whether the complaint made by the Farmers’ and Traders’ Association of Glen Grey as to the insufficiency of the strength of the European Police Force and the South African Mounted Riflemen in the district of Glen Grey has received the attention of the Government, and whether the Government intends taking steps to remedy this insufficiency?

Complaints have been made in the direction indicated, and the matter has been carefully inquired into by the Government. Certain police posts have now been strengthened, and every effort is being made to suppress stock thefts.

moved to insert in subsection (1), the following new paragraphs to follow paragraph (a): (b) sums paid in rates to local authorities; (c) sums paid in respect of interest on debt; (d) any diminution in the value of the livestock and agricultural produce possessed by the taxpayer; (e) in the case of life assurance companies a proportion of any bonus distributed among policyholders equal to the yearly average since the last distribution of bonuses, and in case no bonus has been distributed a sum standing in the same proportion to the total amount insured at the end of the year as the amount of bonus distributed on the occasion of the last distribution divided, by the number of years since the previous distribution stood to the amount then assured.

said there were two consequential amendments to be made in sub-section (b) lines 26 and 27.

He considered that the hon. member’s amendment was quite unnecessary. If a man had a shop on which he paid rates, or had a bond on that property on which he paid interest, that went in diminution of his taxable income.

said he thought the point dealt with under (d) in the hon. member’s proposal was covered by the amendment accepted by the Minister of Finance last night.

I do not think the rates you pay on your houses are covered. I think the rates you pay on your business premises are covered. I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment.

I won’t accept this, because it is covered by the terms of the sub-section as it stands.

asked whether the rates paid on houses would be withdrawn from the income received from such houses.

replied in the affirmative.

said the difficulty would be about a farm house. How much of a farm house was a man’s business premises?

wished to know whether Divisional Council taxation paid on property could be deducted from the income tax which might fall on such property?

replied in the affirmative.

was about to put the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage, when

said he desired to move the amendments separately. He was sorry that the Minister did not see his way to meet him in regard to (b), because he thought it would be better to have that in.

I think the Minister is quite right. If you pay rates on a farm or business premises as part of the working expenses, that is part of the outgoings.

said that this section applied to the whole of the United States. If they paid rates on their properties, considering that they were much more heavily rated in the Cape than in other parts of the Union, there was a certain amount of injustice incurred as between the different, Provinces. In regard to the sition of farms, he knew that in the past the rates were deducted, but he was not at all satisfied that that was clear in the clause they had got now.

said that the hon. member had moved his amendments as a whole, and they had been oiscussed as such. It was impossible to put them seriatim.

I only moved (b) this morning.

said that he thought it was essential to make special provision in the Bill for the deduction from the taxable amount of the road rates paid by farmers. Unless this were made clear he was afraid the Courts would hot uphold the Minister’s view. He doubted whether the same interpretation of the clause would always be taken by others as was now given by the Minister of Finance.

said his hon. friend knew of the practice hore in 1904 and in 1910, and he knew that all these amounts were allowed to be deducted. What he (the Minister) had taken here was verbatim the old clause. Before a man had an income for his farm he had to deduct the taxes which he paid on his farm. That was the natural interpretation, and the interpretation which ariy court of law would put upon this clause.

said that quitrcnt was virtually interest, but it was a question whether a Court would construe it as such. He desired to move the insertion of “quitrent and rates.”

said he would like to know whether, if a man sold a farm for £20,000 in one year, that would be regarded as, part of his taxable income for that year?

moved, that the amendments of Mr. Fremantle be put seriatim.

after some remarks which were wholly inaudible in the Press Gallery, said that the Minister made no deductions in respect of sums paid as interest on debt, but if a man had an income of £1,200 a year and had to pay interest to the amount of £300 a year, his net income was only £900. It was necessary to have some safeguard to prevent the farmer paying income tax on what was his capital. It was not clear whether, if a man sold his livestock the receipts would be regarded as income! As to the sale of a farm mentioned by the hon. member for Umlazi, there was no question of profit or gain, but in the case of sale of livestock the matter was very complicated. Part, would be a capital transaction and a part would be making up the farmer’s income. It was absolutely essential that this point should be, made clear in the Bill. Circumstances had changed since 1904 and some of those matters had not been decided by the Courts. Let them on that occasion make their position perfectly clear. He hoped the Minister would not think that he was trying to obstruct the passage of the Bill.

said the clause should not read “taxable income,” it should be “whole income.” The clause was almost verbatim with the clause that had been included in the previous Bill, with the exception of the words “taxable income.” Supposing a man had £1,200 a year, he paid 6d, in the £ and paid about £5 income tax. By embellishing the clause by putting in those words they robbed the revenue and the taxpayer of a considerable sum of money.

said he would like again to raise the question of the sale of a farm. Take the case of a man who bought a farm for £5,000 and then sold it for £20,000. That would cost him in income tax £800; then he would have to pay transfer fees amounting to £400, so the Government would take £1,200. He hoped the Minister would put something into the clause on deductions dealing with the matter.

said that Bill presupposed the principles of accountancy and bookkeeping., The hon. member ought to know that in the case he had mentioned the money would not be income, but capital. Any income tax law which was passed presupposed a knowledge of bookkeeping and proper accountancy. In a Bill of that description they could not put in all those details. The price of a farm was not current income, it was capital The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had attacked the drafting of the Bill, because there was an alteration in the wording of the Act of many years ago. Taxable income Was: what remained after they had deducted, the £1,000 which was free. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) wanted to go into the whole of those questions which they had already argued “ad nauseam.” They had spent a whole day in discussing the position of insurance societies and the; agricultural returns. He had thought last night that they had settled the matter of the agricultural returns but the hon. member now wished to open the whole question again. He could not agree to that.

said that with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Uinlazi (Mr. Fawcus) it would not be likely that a man who bought a farm for £5,000 would sell’ it for £20,000 in the same year. In the event of the hon. member buying, a farm for £5,000 and selling it for £20,000, he ought not to grudge the country a little; contribution.

said that with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Victoria, West (Mr. J. X. Merriman), taxable income was different from taxable amounts. “Taxable” referred to that portion of the income derived inside the Union. That portion derived outside the Union was not taxable.

said that if the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) bought land which he knew was wanted by the Government and sold it at a profit that profit would be taxable. Supposing a man had his office in Berlin or in London why should it be left to the discretion of the Commissioner to decide what that man should pay ? He moved to insert the word “actually” before the words “incurred outside the Union,” and to delete’ the words “as the Commissioner may allow.”

said they ought not to allow themselves to be misled by the Minister making out that it was only a question of bookkeeping. It was not a question of book keeping, but a question of hard facts. If a man bought a farm for £5,000 and sold it for £20,000, the Government got £1,200 out of the transaction.

said the question he had raised was whether insurance companies were to be allowed, to deduct bonuses. He thought they should be. The question previously was whether they were going to: tax mutual life assurance companies at all. He did not think it was any use pressing paragraph (d) of his amendment, which dealt with, any diminution in the value of livestock, and he withdrew that paragraph.

Mr. Struben’s amendment was negatived.

The amendments of the hon. member for Uitenhage were negatived.

moved, in sub-section (1) (b), lines 26 and 27, the deletion of the words “or in respect of the annual value under which income tax is payable.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On sub-section (c),

moved that the word “buildings” be inserted before “machinery” in lines 41 and 45. He thought the Minister should adopt the same principle with regard to buildings as he did with regard to machinery, and he considered his amendment was a perfectly fair proposition. He pointed out that the Government even allowed for depreciation every year, and instanced the case of the Railway Department, which allowed 4 per cent, for wood and iron buildings, 1£ per cent, for brick and stone buildings, and per cent, for the masonry on jetties, wharves, etc. In addition to that they must take into consideration the abnormal depreciation in the value of property in certain parts of the country. He did not propose to fix any rates, but thought the matter should be left to the discretion of the Commissioner. He did not think that a man should be allowed to write off a tremendous amount of depreciation in one year, but he thought a reasonable rate should be allowed and that that rate should be left to the discretion of the Commissioner.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He pointed out that at Kimberley 30 years ago they could only get wood and iron for building purposes and the interiors of the buildings were lined with what was known as unburnt brick. He pointed out the case of a property, which he owned of this nature and which cost £5,000 to build. It not only depreciated so far as the material was concerned, but it became antiquated and he found it necessary to erect a double storey building in its place. Under the old income tax he was not able to write off one penny, and when the building was pulled down it stood at £5,000. The new building cost £15,000, and if he had gone on the system forced on Mm it would have stood at £20,000. He took off £500 a year, and he had to pay tax on that. In conclusion, he said it was absolutely necessary to write off a certain amount of depreciation every year.

said the hon. member for Cape Town, Central had not taken into consideration buildings used for industrial purposes, which depreciated far more rapidly than ordinary buildings. (Mr. Jagger hear, hear.) He moved at the end of subsection (1) to add the words “except buildings which are used for industrial purposes, causing abnormal depreciation.”

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. It was difficult to see why buildings should be exempt when wear and tear was allowed for machinery, and he pointed out that the Natal Act had provided for such a case.

said he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He pointed out that he brought up the matter the other day when the Minister had told him that it was merely a question of accountancy.

said he would add his appeal to the Minister's. There was a considerable amount of new building going on in the country, and old buildings were being destroyed. He could not see why, if machinery were liable to depreciation, buildings in which the machinery stood should not also be so liable. Often the replacing of old machinery with modern machinery meant the reconstruction of the old buildings.

said he did not quite understand whether the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, intended his amendment to be an addition to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

It is an addition.

said that he had been inclined to back up his hon. friend (Sir T. M. Cullinan), but now he had given the show away—(laughter)— and he (the Minister) would have to go against his proposal. Hon. members would see from the previous sub-section that moneys expended on the repair of buildings were allowed for. Now some hon. members went further, and said that not only were buildings to be kept up to standard, but an allowance ought to be made for depreciation. It seemed to him (the Minister) that to do that would be opening the door very wide indeed. If they were to allow people to write off depreciation in this way there would be a very considerable loss of proceeds from this tax. He, could imagine that in Johannesburg, they would in that case get very little indeed from income tax so far as buildings were concerned. Machinery was on a different footing. In machinery they allowed for both repairs and depreciation. Machinery had only a certain limited life. He was sorry that he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. There was something to be said for the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, if it had stood by itself, but now the hon. member said he wished to pile it on the top of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said he would suggest to the hon. member (Sir T. M. Cullinan) that he should withdraw his amendment for the time being.

said he thought the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was a most reasonable one. If allowance were made for depreciation of machinery, why should not allowance be made for depreciation of buildings, especially when those buildings were used for industrial purposes? The Minister had been piling up the hardships and injustices to such an extent that he hoped he would not proceed any further, and lay this on their shoulders also.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to meet a case such as he had quoted by adding the following words at the end of sub-section (c), “except in the case of the demolition of part or the whole of a building ”?

said he did not think that the Minister had put the position fairly with regard to his question of depreciation on buildings. He had stated that he was allowing for repairs to premises under sub-section (b), but he was also allowing for repairs to machinery. All they asked was that buildings and machinery should be put on the same footing, and that depreciation on buildings should be allowed which was caused by wear and tear.

said he would withdraw his amendment for the time “being.

said that the Minister did not know apparently that in Johannesburg they were not living upon income, but upon capital. He urged that provision Should be made in regard to allowance for depreciation on buildings.

said that, if they allowed depreciation on buildings, he thought they ought also to allow depreciation on pipe tracks for irrigation schemes. The farmer had no right to write down depreciation for his pipe track. If the Minister allowed this amendment he was afraid he was going to get very little indeed, as far as the income tax was concerned.

said he wished to emphasise what had been said by the hon. member for Durban, Berea. He moved to add after “buildings ” the words “ provided in no case shall any allowance be made for depreciation on buildings beyond the amount usually written off each year.”

in supporting the amendment, said the Minister could safeguard the position by saying that depreciation should in no case exceed 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, of the value of the buildings.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment, to insert “buildings” before “machinery” was negatived.

referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, said there were certain isolated cases where wear and tear of certain buildings was very great, but the world was full of hard cases, and hard cases made bad law.

urged that depreciation of buildings was a special disability on industrial concerns. He urged the Minister to reconsider his decision. He moved: To add at the end of sub-section (1) “except buildings which are used for industrial purposes causing abnormal depreciation.”

said he thought the Minister had taken a rather narrow view of this question. There was a time when the Minister would have accepted the amendment, but the other amendment having been defeated, the Minister had hardened his heart.

The amendment of Sir T. M. Cullinan was negatived.

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

Ayes—25.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Emile Nathan and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

Noes—54.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, E-vert Nicolaas

Haggar. Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

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

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

F. R. Cronje and G. A. Louw, tellers.

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

moved: In sub-section (3), line 61, to omit “amount paid to or on account ” and to substitute “emoluments ”.

moved: In line 61, before “nett’, to insert “the sum of”, and after “amount” to insert “exceeds one thousand pounds.”

moved the deletion of the words “amount of any ” in line 68.

then withdrew his amendment.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

moved to add at the end of the clause the following new sub-section (4): “Where in any Province professional licences are paid in excess of the licences paid in, any other Province, such excess shall be deemed and accepted as payment or part payment in respect of any amount chargeable and due from income tax.” The mover said he proposed that because of the vast discrepancy there was in the amount paid for licences in the Free State when compared with other Provinces. In the Free State the licence fees were much heavier than elsewhere. It might be argued that that was provincial revenue, but the licences had been fixed by that House. Notaries and attorneys, while paying nothing in the Cape and in the Transvaal, had to pay in the Free State. In the Transvaal doctors paid nothing, but in the Free State they had to pay a licence of £15 a year.

moved to include trade licences. In the Free State, he held, the trade licences were far higher than in the Cape.

continuing his remarks, compared the licence fees paid by general dealers in the various Provinces, stating that the licence fee paid by general dealers in the Free State was far above that paid in the other Provinces. It was an extraordinary state of affairs that seeing that they were under one Union there should be such a difference in the amounts of licence fees. He (the speaker) had urged during the discussion on the Financial Relations Bill that uniformity should be brought about. At present the matter rested with the Provincial Councils, but the Free State Provincial Council could, in view of the financial position of the Free State, not reduce the fees, because he (Mr. Wilcocks) held that at present less was being done for the Free State than for any other Province. Therefore he urged that the matter should be dealt with in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Ladybrand. It was unfair to place a man who paid a high licence on the same footing as a man who paid a low one. In the Cape a general dealer paid £5, in the Transvaal £1, but in the Free State he paid from £5 to £50. It was only fair that the higher tax should be withdrawn from the amount on which income tax was payable. It was absurd that in the same Union there should be such a variety of different taxes for the same thing.

urged that legislation should be placed on the Statute-book to bring about uniformity of taxation and equal rights for all white persons. The taxes were not equal, and the Free State in particular suffered from that inequality. If something were not done in the direction of securing uniformity of taxation the Free State would be dissatisfied. He supported the amendment.

appealed to the representatives of the two larger Provinces to help the Free Staters to rid that Province of the inequality that existed at the present time—the licence fees which had to be paid by professional men in that Province. He pointed out strongly that it was not a question of money, for the professional men did not grudge it, but it was the distinction made out against the Free State as compared with the position of professional men in the two larger Provinces. The Transvaal had abolished the system of taking licence fees from professional men. What they objected to was the fact that a distinction was made in the case of the Free State. From the first day the Union House commenced, he (Mr. Botha) did his level best in order to get this matter rectified. The Minister of Finance had said that this was a matter for the Province, but the Minister knew very well at the time that it was nothing of the sort. The Minister knew very well that the position of the Free State was unfair as compared with the other Provinces, and it was only right that it should be rectified. The Minister had said they must go to the Province, but they felt that it would be better to come to that House than go to the Provincial Council, because if the latter abolished these fees it would mean that they would lose £10,000 a year in revenue. The Minister knew when the Financial Relations Bill was brought forward that in continuing this system he was perpetuating an inequality on the Free State and yet he did it. He warned the Government that if this injustice was not rectified there would be started in every town in the Free State an agitation against the Government, which the Government would be very sorry for one of these days.

wished to know whether the amendment was in order, as the hon. member was discussing the inequality of licence fees.

said that the hon. member was in order.

said that the hon. member really did not know what was going on in the House. (Laughter.) He insisted that, unless the Government tackled this question, there would be such a body of discontent in the O.F.S. as they would find it difficult to cope with.

said there was considerable discontent about the inequality of licence fees. He did not know whether this was the occasion to deal with the subject, but he held that so long as uniformity was not brought about, so long would people be dissatisfied. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

also supported both the amendments. At present, of course, professional men had to get the additional taxation which was imposed on them from the public, the doctor from his patients, and the barrister from his clients. The Minister might safely take over both amendments.

said he was going to vote for the Bill as it stood because he agreed with the Bill. If the licence fees of the Free State were reduced, then the tariff of charges of barristers would also have to be reduced, and he doubted whether hon. members concerned would be keen on having that done. He doubted whether the Free State would be satisfied to pay rates and taxes, such as education and roads, and matters like that, which were paid at the Cape. He thought that on the whole the Free State was better off than the other Provinces, and it had been well treated in the Financial Relations Act.

said he would advise the member for Rouxville not to go back to the Free State and make the remarks he had just made before his constituents. As to the tariff referred to by the hon. member, he could assure him that the doctor in the Cape could not charge a penny less than the doctor in the Orange Free State. The attorney in the Free State charged slightly higher than the attorney in the Cape, but if they went to the Transvaal they found that there the legal fees were 30 per cent, higher. Mr. Botha went on to say that the attorneys or the professional men in general could not raise the tariffs when they had to make up for bad, times The doctors’ tariff in the Free State was the same as in the other Provinces. The attorneys’ tariff in the Tansvaal was much higher than that in the Free State although the former paid no licence. When a trader paid a higher licence, he increased the selling price of his goods. It seemed to him, however, that the speech of the hon. member for Rouxville was the Swan song of that hon. member.

said the hon. member for Bloemfontein should not talk about the swan songs. He (the speaker) could not accept the amendment. The amendment did not confine itself to the Free State, but applied to all Provinces. Under the amendment any individual paying licence moneys which were higher than those paid in another Province could claim to have a refund, and he feared a tremendous amount of money would thus be involved The amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith made things worse. The licences paid at the Cape were in many respects much higher than those paid in the Free State. It was now time that the vote was taken.

said the Minister of Finance was largely to blame for the discussion. Hon. members had never been able to induce the Government to move in this matter, but he hoped next year it would bring in a Bill to remove these inequalities. (Cheers.) The Free State did not suffer alone in this respect, for inequalities existed in the Cape Province in a very much greater degree than in the Free State. For instance, under the Joint Stock Companies Act every Cape company had to pay 1s. a year for every £100 of subscribed capital, yet they would not be able to deduct this from the amount they paid in income tax. Government should take the matter seriously into consideration.

said he wished to emphasise that the high licence fees in the Free State was a serious cause of grievance to the people of the Free State, and he hoped the Minister would at an early date remove this hardship. Until it was removed the grievance would continue.

I am sorry that the Minister has the bad taste to drag the personal element into this matter.

How is that?

You said I was interested as a practitioner in the matter.

I did not.

I thought the Minister knew better than that. I am concerned personally, as every other professional man is, but I am not doing it for that reason. We object, not because of the money, but because we are treated differently from other practitioners.

said that certain licences paid in the Cape Province were also handed over to the Union. These differential licences were a source of very great complaint, not only in the Free State, but also in the Cape Province. In a crude sort of way licences were income tax. The Minister should have taken this opportunity of doing away with these licences.

said the Minister of Finance was doing an injustice to the different Provinces, for when certain sources of revenue were handed over to the Provincial Councils he should have equalised taxation. But now the mischief had been done. In the Free State there was a great deal of dissatisfaction— (hear, hear)—and in the near future they would hear considerably more of this. People living in the inland parts of the Union were handicapped, but nothing was done to meet their just demands. They had to pay more in railway carriage than people living nearer the coast. It was an injustice and an injustice that would come home.

hoped that the Minister would not remove the licences, but would extend them all over the Union. Dentists, doctors, lawyers and all members of the privileged classes who had practically a monopoly should pay towards the State.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith was carried.

The new sub-section, as amended, was put.

moved the second reading of the Customs Tariff Bill. He said he did not think it was necessary to say much on the second reading of the Bill. The details had been thoroughly threshed out in the Committee, and all that remained was formally to pass each clause formulating the machinery. Those clauses were not novel; they had been taken from the older Acts. That being so, he did not propose to delay the House with any further discussion of the principles of, the Bill

said he did not want to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but there were one or two matters he wanted to go into. The Minister had enormously increased the powers of the officials, to which the Opposition objected very strongly indeed. In clause 3, for instance, there was no appeal against the decision of an official.

That is one of the details.

said it was not a detail. It was a piece of very important machinery which was introduced into the Bill. Under the last Act there had been an appeal to the Minister. The same thing occurred under clause 9 of the present Bill where there was again no appeal. They did press the Minister very strongly for an appeal against the decision of officials. In the first, place officials were biassed. They set out to get as much as possible for the Treasury, whether it was just or not Some of the officials looked on the importers as their natural enemies, which was not the fact by a long way. Those officials resided in Pretoria and had no knowledge of the conditions themselves. They were not on the spot to go into the matter. It had all to be done by correspondence. They (the Opposition) looked upon the provisions of that Bill in many respects as most arbitrary. Clause 9 practically nullified clause 47, sub-section (2), of the Act they passed last year. In that law it had been practically provided that they could set up an arbitration court. Why could something like that not be inserted in that Bill? They only wanted fair play and justice. They did very strongly object to that arbitrary power given to the Commissioner.

He was placing some amendments on the paper, and he hoped that the Minister would give these his earnest attention, particularly the one proposing the establishment of some tribunal to deal with the cases he had mentioned. The Minister was now going to treat Walfish Bay as a foreign port. If one shipped sheep at Walfish Bay for the Cape a duty had to be paid, but if they came across any of the drifts they came in free. The Minister also proposed to give a rebate on soap for woolwashing purposes. He would support that, but why should he not give a rebate on shooks for making boxes. He pointed out there were several soap-making firms in the country, and yet the Minister proposed to go on with an old custom and give a rebate on soap for wool-washing. Why should he not give a rebate to the fruit industry on their boxes?

drew the Minister’s attention to the case of radium, and hoped that the rebate would be allowed.

replied in the affirmative.

said that he and his friends could not support the measure because the necessaries of life were going to be taxed. He asked the House to consider the figures in the report of the Economic Commission, and the statement that the workmen were paying 4s. 6d. per week in taxation through the Customs. He asked the House whether that was not sufficient or whether it was not excessive for a working man to bear, especially in those parts where wages were low. He had hoped that by the passing of the Land Tax Bill more country would have been opened up, and the cost of living cheapened, but it was slipping down the Order Paper, and it would probably never be reached. He and his friends would not be justified in supporting this Bill until the other was passed by the House.

brought up the question of the petition which he presented to the House from the Mayor and Councillors of Boksburg in regard to the duty on trackless tramway material.

It is on the free list.

It is now.

It was then.

said that the Minister’s statement was incorrect in view of the communication received by the Mayor of Boksburg from the Secretary for Finance. If that letter was not correct then he hoped the Minister would refund the amount that had been paid. He said he thought the Secretary strained the interpretation of the clause, and thought this a second reason why the amount should, be refunded.

supported the hon. member tor Cape Town. Central, in his appeal for some tribunal to deal with the Commissioner’s decisions, and added that Natal felt most strongly on this question. With regard to the rebate on soap tor wool-washing, he said he did not see the necessity of this owing to the fact that soap works were in operation in the Union If the Minister persisted in putting this in the Bill he would have demands from other industries asking for a similar exemption. He protested against the inclusion of the dumping clause because he thought that foodstuffs would be the articles most affected by this clause. He said that appeals had been made for a stable tariff, but he thought that the inclusion of this clause would lead to instability.

supported what had been said by the right hon. member for Victoria West with regard to radium, and appealed to the Minister to consider the cases of surgical instruments and appliances which, he said, in their way were just as valuable. He thought that every assistance should be given medical men to get the best equipment of instruments it was possible for them to do. With regard to surgical appliances he pointed out that it cost £5 to bring in a leg, whereas any man could bring in two for nothing. (Laughter.)

said he desired to support what had been said by the hon. member for Boksburg in regard to the petition of the Municipality for remission of duties on material for the trackless tram system.

said he was opposed to the second reading of this Bill. In the first place, he thought it was altogether unnecessary at this time had the Government carried on their business property. In the second place, not only had this been brought on by the extravagance with which the Administration had been carried out, but the method in which it was done was, he thought, altogether contrary to the best interests of this country. Without any proper inquiry items were taken at random and thrown at them as subjects for additional duties. Notwithstanding the Minister’s own pregnant words a few years ago at Durban, he came here to-day and there was no idea whatever of the stability in the tariff, that the Minister said was so important for the future welfare of South Africa. There was also in this Bill a principle to which he was distinctly opposed. It was proposed to give the Governor-General the power to enter into an agreement with any Territory in South Africa, giving them free trade in South Africa. If the Minister had said that there should be, as far as possible, free trade between all the British Possessions in Africa he would be with him; if he had said that there should be free trade in the Empire and protection against the outside world, he would be with him, but he was not in favour of giving into the hands of the Government the power to make an agreement for free trade with a foreign Power next to us and an agreement not free trade with a British possession just round the corner.

said he hoped that even yet it might be possible to give hon. members a full opportunity of expressing their opinion on the matter of the preferential tariff. He could only agree with the utmost reluctance to vote for a Bill which included a matter that he regarded as detrimental to South Africa and to the Empire.

then put the question that the Bill be read a second time.

said, he desired to call attention to the system under which the allowances of members of the Senate and Assembly were paid. At the present moment certain allowances were made for the four or five months during which the House was in session, and the balance was held back until the end of the year. This did not work out satisfactorily. In the case of hon. members who became deceased, or who terminated their membership of the House for other reasons a certain refund had to be made. It had been suggested, and the Public Accounts Committee had made a recommendation that these allowances should be paid out at so much per month. He believed that in Great Britain the same allowance was paid out each quarter.

said he thought it would be a much better arrangement if the allowances were paid out in regular amounts.

said that this question was settled by a combined committee of the two Houses. No doubt the question would be gone into again next session.

said he thought the present system had worked fairly well. After all, they could not compare the payments made in England with the payments made to members here, because members of the House of Commons were not subjected to deductions for non-attendance.

said the basis of payment under the old Cape system was far fairer than the present system. People coming into town from other parts of the country were paid a certain allowance under that old system, while now the members living in the Peninsula and those coming from elsewhere received exactly the same. He thought there was a good opening for economy here. If the old basis was accepted again he thought a far better position would be created. Those who lived here had very little consideration for those who lived a long way off.

said the messengers of the House received no payment for overtime, although their wages were not very high.

They are paid overtime.

Some of them get it, but I am informed that a certain section, including the cleaners, do not get overtime.

Vote 2 Was agreed to.

in moving that the salary of Mr. Speaker be reduced from £2,000 to £1,000, said he did so as a protest against the manner in which Mr. Speaker filled, or rather failed to fill, the high office he occupied. He (Mr. Fichardt) was not actuated by any personal feeling in this matter. (Laughter.) He had known Mr. Speaker for many years and regarded him as a personal friend, and he hoped that that friendship would not be interfered with. He made the proposition more freely because it was largely owing to himself and his colleagues from the Free State that Mr. Speaker occupied the position he did to-day. He (Mr. Fichardt) brought this matter up entirely through a sense of duty, and in what he believed to be the best interests of the House and in the best interests of the business of the country. First of all he would like to refer to the entire lack of interest Mr. Speaker took in the House, and as an illustration would mention the Internal Arrangements Committee, of which Mr. Speaker was chairman. He (Mr. Fichardt) believed he was right in saying that during the whole life of this Parliament that committee had not met half a dozen times. In the first session he was a member of that committee, and it did not hold a single meeting. There was a vast amount of accommodation in this House, and rooms were allowed to remain vacant and locked up. But as far as members were concerned, precious little arrangement was made for their accommodation or convenience, with the result that they were driven out of the House. Then the attendance in the dining-room was becoming worse and worse, while the charges were very much in excess of those outside, though the quality was very much inferior. This sort of thing was becoming worse and worse. This could very easily be corrected if Mr. Speaker took the slightest interest in the House, but he did not do so. It appeared to him (Mr. Fichardt) that Mr. Speaker was a great deal more interested outside the House than he was in it. The members were left to depend entirely on themselves as far as their comfort was concerned. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker appeared to regard the House as a personal possession of his. (Hear, hear,) He (Mr. Fichardt) thought it was high time that the galleries were all thrown open for the use of members as they wished. (Hear, hear.) He had made application to Mr. Speaker for tickets for the distinguished strangers’ gallery when the public gallery was full, for what he considered were distinguished strangers from his own constituency. His request had been refused, yet he had afterwards seen Mr. Speaker issue tickets to other members for people whom he (Mr. Fichardt) did not consider very distinguished—in fact, in some cases they were school children. Then in this Chamber itself Mr. Speaker had a wonderful knack of failing to see members who wanted to speak. (Labour cheers.) Whether this was done to expedite business he (Mr. Fichardt) did not know, but it had not that effect. He charged Mr. Speaker with deliberate rudeness to members on several occasions, (Hear, hear.) He remembered an occasion when an hon. member rose to address Mr. Speaker on the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, in order that he might put a question to him, but Mr. Speaker deliberately turned his back and left the Chair. That did not seem to him (Mr. Fichardt) to be a proper attitude for Mr. Speaker to adopt. What made it all the more galling was that Mr. Speaker seemed thoroughly to enjoy this treatment of members. ‘(Hear, hear.) He hoped this statement would have the effect of improving the relationship between Mr. Speaker and the members. This sort of attitude did not make for discipline or for harmonious working between members and Mr. Speaker. Again, who had not, realised from Mr. Speaker’s rulings that certain members were allowed to say certain things which were denied to certain other members? (Labour cheers.) He would quote his own case. On one occasion the Minister of Lands made a wholly irrelevant attack on him (Mr. Fichardt). Following the usual procedure he endeavoured to reply, but Mr. Speaker at once stopped him Claiming the privilege of defending himself, Mr. Speaker said he (Mr. Fichardt) had misunderstood the Minister. As the Minister’s speech was made in Dutch and as he (Mr. Fichardt) claimed to have a considerably better working knowledge of that language than did Mr. Speaker, he claimed that Mr. Speaker was wrong, and if Mr. Speaker had paid the least attention he would have known that the Minister’s attack was almost wholly devoted to him (Mr. Fichardt). In proof of this the “Cape Times” report of the Minister’s speech consisted of 73 lines, 49 lines of which were devoted to him personally and the remainder to public matters. The Parliamentary Notist of the “Cape Times” remarked, “the Minister devoted himself mainly to an attack on the hon. member for Ladybrand.”

His (Mr. Fichardt’s) case was a particularly glaring instance of Mr. Speaker's attitude, his reply having been that he (Mr. Fichardt) had misunderstood the Minister. He would ask hon. members whether that was the sort of treatment which made for the harmonious and the good working of public business in that House. He would ask hon. members to refer to a book published by a Mr. Michael Donovan with regard to the duties of Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons in England. Amongst the other points raised in that book was this, that Mr. Speaker respected the House and, the House respected Mr. Speaker—that was the very essence of order, and that was what had won for the House of Commons the title of the “Mother of Parliaments.” Did the attitude of Mr. Speaker make for the respect of that House, and did it make the House respect Mr. Speaker? He (Mr. Fichardt) made his protest against the way in which Mr. Speaker had treated hon. members of that House. Was it proper or dignified, did it make for the dignity which attached to Mr. Speaker’s position, when they found Mr. Speaker lying fast asleep when a debate was taking place, and when they saw that it was necessary to send a messenger to prod him in order that he might maintain the dignity of the House? Then when he (Mr. Speaker) woke from his snooze, he called on an hon. member to speak when that hon. member was not even on his feet addressing the House. He (Mr. Fichardt) admitted that it must be wearisome to the flesh for Mr. Speaker to have to sit there and listen to all the speeches, but they realised that in fixing the high salary they had Mr. Speaker would have a great deal to put up with, and they had realised what he would have to suffer in the position he occupied. He did not think it made for the dignity of the Chair or for the dignity of the House for Mr. Speaker to adopt the attitude he had in the position he occupied. He (Mr. Fichardt) thought he had covered all the ground he wanted to in regard to the attitude of Mr. Speaker. Since Mr. Speaker had been elected over a bilingual House, four years had elapsed, and during that time Mr. Speaker might have acquired a far better knowledge of the Dutch language than he had done, but Mr. Speaker took so little interest in the matter that he did not make any effort to make his presidency of that House run more smoothly as far as the Dutch-speaking members of the House were concerned. If Mr. Speaker had the least interest in the place he occupied he would have at least taken some steps to obtain a better knowledge of the Dutch language. For many reasons he (Mr. Fichardt) found the task he had imposed on himself a most unpleasant One, but it was one that he regarded as a duty. He could assure the House that it was anything but a pleasant duty he had taken on himself in introducing that unpleasant subject. He had felt that it was proper that question should be raised, and he would like to say that although hon. members might object to what he said, if they would only say straightly and openly in that House what they were always saying in the Lobby, then they would support him in his proposition for the reduction of Mr. Speaker’s salary by £1,000.

said he had listened with extreme pain and regret to the speech which had just been made by the hon. member for Ladybrand, a speech which he thought was unprecedented in the annals of Parliament. As far as they were concerned on that side of the House they entirely dissociated themselves from the remarks of the hon. member who had just spoken. The hon. member had just said that he had made that speech as a duty and that it was not pleasant for him to make it. He (the Minister) remembered a previous occasion when the hon. member had given vent to his feelings in language so extreme and with bitterness so apparent in reference to the Prime Minister and others that he (the Minister) had almost come to the conclusion that the hon. member relished that sort of thing, and relished speaking with bitterness and disrespect and rudeness of those in authority in that House. (Hear, hear.) If they came to the details of what the hon. member had said, they found that they were so trivial that he could not understand why they should be the occasion of such an unprecedented attack. The hon. member had seen somebody in the Distinguished Strangers’ Gallery who he thought was not sufficiently distinguished to sit there. The hon. member had not enjoyed his lunch, and he spoke as if Mr. Speaker were the chief caterer. The hon. member had not been allowed by Mr. Speaker to pursue a venomous attack on a Minister or someone else. Mr. Speaker had seen that things were going too far, and had called a halt. Those were the reasons which justified the hon. member in that extreme and unprecedented attack. He (the Minister) did not refer to the other things referred to by the hon. member He (the Minister) was in that House as much as anybody else, and he had never seen Mr. Speaker asleep. Very often their eyes might be closed and they took a reposeful attitude. He would have liked the hon. gentleman to have belonged to the profession he (the Minister) had the honour to belong to, and to have had to argue before a bench of judges with closed eyes and in a reposeful attitude. He supposed the hon. member would have moved the reduction of the judges’ salaries by £1,000. (Laughter.) They were not all perfect, and Mr. Speaker would not lay claim more than anyone else to perfection. They should not have those trivialities and make charges of that nature in the House. That House enjoyed a reputation of being one of the best conducted Houses all over the world. He had read recently of the proceedings in a sister Parliament—proceedings that had taken place over three or four days— and if hon. members compared their proceedings with what had been happening in the sister Parliament, compared it with the decorum and propriety with which their proceedings were conducted, they would think it was impossible for such a state of affairs to take place as was shown on the record of the proceedings of that sister Parliament. The attack on Mr. Speaker would not tend to improve the dignity of the proceedings in that Parliament—it must tend to degrade Parliament to attack Mr. Speaker, and he (the Minister) expressed his regret in the strongest language possible that such an attack had been made. (Cheers.)

said the Minister of Finance had started his remarks by saying that he had listened with pain and regret to the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand. His (Mr. Creswell’s) pain and regret was that there should be so much false sentiment in that House, and that members should be afraid to say what they thought. He (Mr. Creswell) was not going to be mealy-mouthed about the matter. The remarks of the hon. member for Ladybrand, far from degrading Parliament, would, he hoped, make Mr. Speaker conduct the business in that House with more impartiality than he did. The Minister of Finance, in his reply, had taken only the trivialities and had neglected altogether what was the real gravamen of the hon. member’s charges. They (the Labour members), as a small minority in that House, continually suffered through Mr. Speaker’s inability to protect the rights of the minority. So far from protecting the rights of the minority, Mr. Speaker was always out to put a stop to the minority’s action, and was always in the interests of the Government. The Minister of Finance had said that such a speech had never been made in a Parliament before. He would recall to the Minister’s mind a very historic case. On one occasion a Speaker who had been appointed by the King was kept in his seat by five members so as to get the business of the country done. Hitherto there had been a sense of responsibility about Speakers, and there was a standing instance in South Africa—the Speaker hon. members had elected to the Speakership of the Transvaal Parliament. (Cheers.) From all members one had heard nothing but high tribute to the extraordinary impartiality of the gentleman who took that position in the Transvaal. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Creswell) would quote one or two instances to show that the rights of the minority were not safe in the hands of Mr. Speaker in that House. A few weeks ago they passed a Closure motion, which left it to the Speaker to decide whether the Closure was an infringement of the rights of minorities or not If ever there was an infringement of the rights of the minority it was the motion to apply the Closure when his hon. friend had been speaking on the motion to commit the Riotous Assemblies Bill. One speech had been made by the hon. member for George Town. Mr. Speaker after having that hon. member’s amendment be fore him for an hour and a half suddenly, discovered that the amendment was not in order—after an hour-and-a-half’s deliberation. They expected from Mr. Speaker that he should say that an amendment was or was not in order, and not to go back and say that it was not in order after an hour-and-a-half.

Upon that up jumped the Minister and moved that the question be now put. The debate was brought to a close in the course of the second speech on one of the most important measures brought before that House. Mr. Speaker then had in his hands the protection of the rights of minorities. Would anyone contend that it was protecting the rights of minorities to allow the closure to be moved in the second speech made in that debate. That was straining the point against the minority in favour of the Government. Then Mr. Speaker had the discretion to allow the adjournment of the House to discuss matters of urgent public importance. They, on those benches, had come to the conclusion that no matter how they might-frame a motion Mr. Speaker would invariably rule it Out of order. At the very commencement of this session when certain citizens of the Union were being deported, he (Mr. Creswell) moved the adjournment of the House to discuss the question. If there was any occasion when the minority had a right to demand the protection of the House it was on that occasion. Last session Mr. Speaker would allow the adjournment of the House because a few cattle had strayed from one quarantine area to another, but the fact that 9 citizens of the Union were being taken away illegally was not of sufficient importance, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker would not allow it. They on those benches felt satisfied that if Mr. Speaker could find any reason for ruling out such a motion, unless it came from the Government side or influential quarters on the other side, he would do so. He was speaking what he felt. He was not going to grumble in the lobby and talk about the dignity of the House. There was another matter which was a personal matter. One thing Mr. Speaker was charged with, and that was the duty of seeing that every individual in that House had fair play, that there was no chance of his being persecuted by his political opponents. The Minister moved for a Select Committee dealing with the telegram incident.

That thing was only a thinly veiled attack against his (Mr. Creswell’s) own personal honour, and through him the party with whom he was associated. It went off like a damp squib. The nomination of that Committee was left in Mr. Speaker’s hands. In common decency Mr. Speaker should have asked one of his (Mr. Creswell’s) colleagues to have sat on that Committee. On no, they were only the Labour Party. They were only dirt, and should be treated as dirt. Mr. Speaker appointed that Committee, and he was not going to discuss those proceedings, or the undignified action the committee took. They could not call upon him (Mr. Creswell). They got hold, of some individual who, in the course of cautious conversation, admitted that he gave him (Mr., Creswell) the information, and they tried to threaten him with all the pains and penalties of Parliament. If they did that to that individual why could they not have done the same to him (Mr. Creswell). Were they afraid? That was the sort of thing Mr. Speaker dragged them into. He charged Mr. Speaker with a lack of safeguarding the individual in a matter of that kind, in giving the matter to a committee composed entirely of his (Mr. Creswell’s) political opponents and in not seeing that he got fair play. Then one was constantly interrupted by Mr. Speaker. On one occasion quite recently this happened. It was, according to the rules, competent for any member of the House to move that the House do now adjourn. Only a few days ago he (Mr. Creswell) moved that. Mr. Speaker asked: “To discuss what? ” He (Mr. Creswell) said he was moving that the House do now adjourn. Mr. Speaker pulled him up two or three times, but finally Mr. Speaker had to let him go on. That was ‘not dignified. Mr. Speaker heard clearly what he (Mr. Creswell) said. He maintained that Mr. Speaker would not have adopted that attitude if a motion had been moved from the Government side. Mr. Speaker also ruled him out of order the other day because he (Mr. Creswell) touched on a Bill which was on the paper. He was sure that certainly not two days went when in the course of some debate some member did not frequently refer to, but did not discuss, some Bill on the paper. All these interruptions did not make for decency or security on the part of the member who was speaking.

Then again there was a question of the men who had been put on the victimisation list. When they tried to raise that question, Mr. Speaker said that that had been debated on the Railway Strike Bill. The fact of the matter was that it was not discussed. They had got citizens of this country complaining of grievous wrongs, and they had Mr. Speaker practically prohibiting Parliament from discussing these things. There was a matter last Tuesday when the hon. member for George Town tried to add to a motion of the hon. member for Boshof a rider dealing with the dependants of those killed and injured, last July. Mr. Speaker said: “The matter has already been discussed in this House.” That matter had never been discussed There was a motion for a return of der tain papers, and these were laid on the Table. It was absolute nonsense. One of the members on the cross-benches moved for a report of Mr. Jordan, who made the inquiry upon these cases, upon which no debate took place. Was there any matter more worthy of consideration of that House? But Mr. Speaker said that the matter had been discussed. He imagined some debate had taken place, and said they were debarred from saying anything. Throughout the proceedings of this session of the Union Parliament Mr. Speaker had not regarded any proposal from the cross-benches with impartiality. That was what he (Mr. Creswell) thought, and perhaps hon. members who thought the same and yet hesitated to say what they thought, would stand up and agree. Every one of them at one time or another had reason to complain of the discourteous way in which Mr. Speaker ruled that House. There were cases where Mr. Speaker said “The hon. member will sit down. ” There was a certain dignity which Mr. Speaker might use in such cases. He was quite prepared and he was perfectly sure some hon. member would get up and would chastise him and talk about the dignity of that House. He was quite prepared for that. There was a certain respectability which prevented them from denying what existed. No good would come from grumbling in the lobby and coming into that House and talking with mealy-mouthed respectability.

said he would not have risen were it not for certain remarks that had been made by the hon. member for Jeppe. He was chairman of the committee mentioned by the hon. member, which was appointed to investigate the telegram incident. If the opportunity presented itself he (Sir Henry) was prepared to meet the hon. member for Jeppe on any action that he (Sir Henry) or that committee took. Perhaps he might be one of those who prided themselves on a certain sense of respectability, if it meant in accusing a person who had absolutely nothing to do with the matter of improper conduct. The committee and himself were responsible for what they did. Mr. Speaker had no more to do with the course they pursued than any other member. (Labour dissent.) But the hon. member for Jeppe accused Mr. Speaker of being responsible for the conduct of the committee. If that was not so then his statement had no meaning. The appointment of the committee was one thing; the course of conduct of the dommittee was another matter. Whatever might be said with regard to this matter upon that one point, the committee took full responsibility for its action in the matter, and Mr. Speaker had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker appointed that Committee and did not take care to see that it was not, one composed exclusively of my political opponents.

said be wished to move the reduction of the vote of £44,400 by £11,100, the amount still to be paid to members. He wished members who did nothing but cause trouble to have an opportunity of showing what they were prepared to do. Some people, who contributed nothing to the Treasury, were always prepared to tax others, and he desired to give these members an opportunity of taxing themselves now.

said he wished to heartily endorse what had been said by the hon. member for Ladybrand and the hon. member for Jeppe. The Minister of Defence, as in duty bound, got up and defended Mr. Speaker from this attack. He was only doing what he really ought to do, in view of the fact that he himself and his party had been so often defended in this House in doing certain things by Mr. Speaker. If it were unprecedented in any part of the world, this attack upon Mr. Speaker, his answer would be that the action of Mr. Speaker was unprecedented in many ways in any part of the world. He would rather see this £1,000 taken from Mr. Speaker’s salary and added to the salary of the present Clerk of the House, because, if Mr. Speaker understood his work as he ought to understand it, he would not require to take his orders so completely from the Clerk. (Cries of “Oh.”) It was no use hon. members growling. Times without number they found that, owing to the exceptional knowledge of the Clerk of the House, he had got to turn round and put Mr. Speaker on the right side. If a railway porter or a signalman or a shunter did not understand his work and did not do it with fewer mistakes than the Speaker of this House he would be sacked two or three times a week.

said that the Minister of Finance had charged him with making an attack upon the Speaker which was trivial and childish. His object in mentioning some of the smaller matters was to show that even in the smallest thing Mr. Speaker took precious little interest in what was being done in this House. It was all very well for the Minister to say that “everything in the garden is lovely.” Of course it was, as far as the Minister was concerned. The Minister had a very tender feeling and a very great regret to express when he charged him (Mr. Fichardt) with being personal, but a little while ago when the Prime Minister made a personal attack upon him (Mr. Fichardt) about “eavesdropping” it was quite a different matter.

said he wished to support what had fallen from the hon. member for Ladybrand and the hon. member for Jeppe. They could give the committee scores of instances similar to those mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe. A protest bad been made, and he wished to associate himself with it. He did not at all see the point of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, who appeared to be very angry, and who had stated that the hon. member for Jeppe had made an attack on the committee. Nothing of the kind. This committee was selected by Mr. Speaker for a certain purpose, but it was carefully selected from partisans antagonistic politically to hon. members on the cross-benches.

said he was in favour of economy, but still he thought that the payments to members should be preserved. He wished to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. member for Ficksburg. He (the speaker), like other members, was not one of those who had a large balance in the bank, and could come here to watch and vote against an income tax. He had to make great sacrifices to come here, and had in the past made great sacrifices for this country, and he thought the remarks made by the hon. member for Ficksburg were most unfair. They were not all in the same position as the hon. member.

said he entirely agreed with the Minister of Finance that this was a painful subject to discuss, but he did not agree with him that, because it was painful, they should not discuss it. On he contrary, he believed that the discussion of painful subjects helped to remove the difficulties and grievances under which people laboured. In the first place, he thought he might fairly claim to be one of the favoured members of the House, so far as coming into contact with Mr. Speaker was concerned. He had no occasion to complain that Mr. Speaker at any time had treated him with rudeness, or that he had refused to see him or had not given him a fair opportunity of discussing matters. Perhaps it might be that he was obeying or following the Rules of the House more closely than other members, who fell under Mr. Speaker’s rebuke. At the same time, as a member of this House, he had his own ears, he had his own eyes, and he could form his own judgment of the things which occurred in this House, and he was bound to say that his own observation had forced him to the conclusion—and it was a conclusion which was shared by many hon. members of, this House, not only by the rank and file, but by important front-bench members—that the Speaker had not always exhibited that dignity and impartiality which the House expected from an hon. member occupying the high and important position which he occupied. He thought, although the discussion here to-day was a painful one, so far from doing harm, it would do good, because he was firmly persuaded that Mr. Speaker was entirely ignorant and did not know what feelings a large number of members had towards him in regard to his rulings and his conduct in the past.

He thought it was unfair to Mr. Speaker that he should be left in ignorance; it was only right there should be a discussion and that Mr. Speaker should clearly understand that although the majority of hon. members in the House could not agree with what had fallen from hon. members, it was only right and proper that be should be told in perfectly clear and respectful language that there were a large number of members in that House who had substantial grievances against him. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hull) had had an opportunity of forming his own judgment on some of the rulings and some of the points of conduct of Mr. Speaker, and he was bound to say that out in the lobby the Speaker’s conduct had been frequently and adversely commented upon. It was rather surprising to him to find when a question was raised in the House that hon. members who had spoken in the lobby, far louder than the hon. member for Jeppe or the hon. member for Lady-brand, should be silent. He was not going to suggest that there was a want of nerve on the part of those hon. members to express their feelings, because they did not exhibit any want of nerve outside in the lobby, and it was extraordinarily strange that when they were afforded the opportunity of saying aye or no as to whether they thought the Speaker was entirely impartial and had never been guilty of rudeness the hon. members should not take the opportunity of saying so. Now that the attention of Mr. Speaker had been called to the points upon which he had not risen to the high dignity which was expected of him he thought the hon. member for Lady-brand would be well advised to withdraw his motion, for he was convinced that after that discussion Mr. Speaker would realise his shortcomings and walk more warily in future.

said he had no personal grievance, but he wished to draw attention to the treatment meted out to the Dutch language by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker’s knowledge of that language might have been slight, but he had had four years in which properly to become acquainted with Dutch. Was it to be wondered at that in the circumstances some hon. members, when they failed to get an answer in Dutch to a question put in that language, were losing interest in the proceedings of this House? He thought this was a matter which the Speaker should give his careful attention to. Clause 137 of the South Africa Act should be brought more into practice.

said as a member who was not well versed in English he wished to say that he often did not know what was going on and had to ask other hon. members. He trusted that Mr. Speaker would in the future see to it that both languages received equal treatment. He also agreed with Mr. Hull that every member of the House should receive precisely equal treatment. He did not wish to charge Mr. Speaker with partiality, but felt bound to draw attention to the attack which had been made by the Minister of Lands on the hon. member for Ladybrand. Mr. Speaker’s conduct and action on that occasion had given hon. members some concern.

intimated that as he only desired that the matter should be discussed and that purpose had been served he would be glad to be allowed to withdraw his motion.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

The amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg was negatived, and the vote was agreed to.

moved the elimination of the “Hansard ” vote of £6,000. He held that this was an item they could well do without. They would see the reports appearing in the papers the day after, but subsequently when “Hansard” was printed they saw the speeches altered altogether, and large portions added which had never been spoken. They requested either a verbatim report or no report at all. Seeing that the country badly wanted money, he was unable to vote for this useless expenditure.

said he was sure the “Hansard” reporters did their best to report correctly. Whenever he saw the reports they were fairly correct, although sometimes somewhat summarised. He further wished to point out that a contract for the compiling of “Hansard” had been concluded for four years. That contract would be up next year, when the whole question could be gone into. The present, however, was not the right time to deal with the matter.

in supporting the motion, said that if the contract were broken the damages would be considerably less than £6,000, for he understood that no profit accrued to the “Cape Times” and the other newspaper which had the contract. He did not blame the reporters—(cheers)—for he understood they were limited to a certain space. After all, what was the object of the “Hansard?” To be used in evidence against one. (Laughter.) But “Hansard,” in his opinion, served no useful purpose whatever. This session he had never attempted to correct his speeches, because chunks were cut out of them, while other speeches were given word for word. On the Riotous Assemblies Bill he quoted from “The Worker,” which said that if a speech was worth listening to they would always get people to listen to it, but there was not a word of that in the newspaper on the following morning. He also said they would not be able to hold a Unionist Party meeting on the Rand. He had hoped to have that as evidence for use next session, but it had gone. (Laughter.) But, on the other hand, he did find certain speeches reported which might well have been left for the next century. Our deficiency was something enormous, and if we took £6,000 off the vote it would be less by that amount.

said he was entirely in accord with the proposition. From the very, commencement of this Parliament they on the cross-benches had opposed the vote. If they were going to have a Hansard at all, it should be a real lecord of what hon. members said. The present Hansard was certainly unsatisfactory. It was a newspaper Hansard, and naturally it must be in the discretion of the editor as to which speeches were the more valuable, but in an official record there would be no respect for persons. So far as the country was concerned, a member’s constituents had a right to know what he had said in Parliament, and they should not be given an abridged report. At the same time he did not blame the reporters. If they were going to have a Hansard it should be a real Hansard. He remembered the Minister’s arguments that through the Hansard reports being published in the newspapers people in the country were given some interest in the proceedings of Parliament. But that argument had a very limited application. Apart from the precincts of Cape Town—where the “Cape Times” and “Ons Land” circulated—all the rest of the people in the country read the, telegraphic accounts of Parliament, and very rarely, he would say, did they wait to get a paper from here with a full report. The £6,000 would be better spent in reducing the telegraphic rates so as to allow of the transmission of fuller reports. Personally, he had never corrected any of his speeches, simply because he did not think members should be called upon practically, to rewrite their speeches when the reports were cut down to the extent they were.

said he had had no intention of reflecting on the reporters. The point he had wished to make was that the report appearing in the paper was altogether different from that which appeared in Hansard. That was due to the fact that members sat down for hours correcting the speeches. Members might say one thing in their speeches, but when they corrected their speeches they said something different. Here they might speak of an elephant, but in Hansard they spoke of a pig. (Laughter.) Even if it had to cost more, let them have a proper Hansard.

said he was in favour of great economy. The hon. member had spoken of members being able to correct their speeches, but that was necessary. He did not wish to blame the reporters, but often something altogether different from what was said appeared in the Hansard report. He thought it would be futile to delete this vote, and he would not vote for the amendment.

having denied that he corrected his speeches, said he agreed as to the desirability of deleting the item. He hoped the Minister would make an alteration so as to give satisfaction to hon. members of the House in the matter.

asked what advantage or benefit the country received from Hansard? Hansard was there mainly to report the front benches. Of course the reporters had their instructions. Everyone could see that the full reports were the cause of long speeches. Members simply used Hansard to advertise themselves. He would rather see the contract broken and leave it to the papers to report as they pleased. If Hansard were abolished and the Press Gallery closed the session would conclude in about half the time.

said the expenses could be diminished by having a Hansard in only one language. Every speech had to be placed in Hansard in both languages, and he did not see the necessity of this being done. Hansard need only be in the language in which the speech was delivered. This certainly was not a breach of clause 137. At least £3,000 could be saved in this manner. He hoped the Government would give its attention to the matter when the contract came again before the Government.

said it appeared that hon. members advocated breaking the contract. Two sessions ago a Select Committee went very carefully into that question, and a large majority of members of the House endorsed the contract. Now two years afterwards they complained of the very thing they had said would happen under the contract. He had been all along convinced that that money could be spent in a better direction. The House was entitled to some official record of its proceedings. They were expecting too much from Hansard. In the first place they had been trying to get disseminated throughout the Union a better report of the proceedings of Parliament and at the same time they wanted an official record. It was impossible in the columns of a partisan newspaper to get a satisfactory report. English newspapers had more accommodation for Parliamentary reports than the Dutch newspapers. If they had Hansard at all they should have a proper Hansard, and they should have a better report circulated throughout the Union. He thought they might have some sort of official Hansard in an abridged form, not compiled by partisans or persons employed by partisans, but done by officials of that House. He thought that could be done for about £1,000 more than they were paying now. Then they could supply the official report of the proceedings to the Press, and if the Press mangled it about they could withdraw that privilege. He did not see why they should break the contract, as that would cost them as much as they could get the work done for, but he thought that in future Parliaments they should have some scheme which would not cost much more and would give greater satisfaction.

said he could not agree with the amendment, and held that constituents of members desired to see what their representatives said. The Dutch Hansard, he thought was most unsatisfactory and ought to be improved. Often one saw “the hon. member was inaudible,” and that was the way in which reporters did the work. There was a good deal in the remarks of the hon. member for Boshof, Mr. Grobler went on. He pointed out that the reports of Parliament under the old Volksraad used to be published in the “Gazette,” and that was an even more expensive system than the present.

said Hansard ought to be in the hands of hon. members at an earlier date than had been the case in the past, and he did not see any reason why the volume should not be in their hands within a month after the close of the session.

said the fact that hon. members were inaudible was due to the fact that when a Dutch member spoke a number of hon. members made such a noise that no one else could hear him. He thought this practice was to be deprecated. The Dutch Hansard did its best, Mr. Van der Walt went on, but he thought that two officials could do far better work at a cost of £2,000. The Dutch Hansard was well done, and he was not opposed to that portion of the item.

The amendment was negatived.

The vote was agreed to.

said he would like to ask the Prime Minister when he intended to take steps to fill the post of High Commissioner of South Africa in London, which had been vacant now for nearly 11 months.

said he was in rather a difficulty. There were certain matters which he wished to bring before the Committee in connection with the Minister of Native Affairs, but he found that there was no salary on the Estimates for the Minister of Native Affairs. The whole of the salary was put down to the Prime Minister. He desired to know what course he would have to take in order to raise certain questions which came under the control of the Minister of Native Affairs.

said that, in order to discuss the policy of the department, it was not necessary to propose a reduction. It would be competent for the hon. member to raise any questions concerning the Department of Native Affairs when the first vote was submitted.

said he would like some information with regard, to the fiasco which had occurred in reference to certain Ordinances passed by the Provincial Councils of the Cape and the Transvaal, which had been declared by the Courts of Law to be ultra vires.

said that last year they passed a Financial Relations Act and in that Act;they made it possible by arrangement between the Government and the Provincial Administration for the latter to take over certain services. Those services were taken over by Proclamation of the Governor-General. The Provinces seemed to have been rushed for time and they started their Provincial Ordinances before all these processes had been gone through. Whether they were under the impression that the Act was enough or not, that was what they did. The Court had held that the Proclamation came too late to validate the legislation which had been started in the Provinces. That was the whole story in a nutshell.

said it was very much in a nutshell. He thought it was rather disingenuous on the part of the Minister to throw the responsibility on the Provincial Councils in this way.

said he had given information to the House in good faith and perfectly in accord with facts, and the hon. member was not entitled to make such a remark. There was a Proclamation long before April 14, and the hon. member knew it, and that was the Proclamation on which the legislation started. The Act was passed here in April and assented to by the Governor-General, but in the meantime he believed the Ordinances had been started in the Provincial Councils also. So that when the Proclamation came to be issued eventually it had to be retrospective in order to validate the legislation which had already started in the Provincial Councils. Would the hon. member tell him that he was not aware of that when he said that he (the Minister) was disingenuous?

I will say that. I am not in the habit of coming here and saying things that are not correct, I asked for an explanation and, if the Minister had given that explanation before, I would not have accused him of disingenuousness.

said that in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he could only say that he hoped the appointment would be made very soon.

said he wished to call the Prime Minister's attention to what was known as the “Swazi scare.” Certain perfectly irresponsible people chose to take upon themselves to start a scare and to do a great many illegal acts. Would the Prime Minister take steps to see that such things did not occur again?

said it was difficult for him to say what steps ought to be taken if a scare was caused. Rumours had suddenly been spread that there was a native rising, and people had gone into laager, but where these came from he did not know. After an inquiry by a magistrate the people who had been scared were pacified and had gone home again. But what further steps could have been taken he did not know. They could do nothing to prevent such rumours from being started.

said that, as this was the first place where the item “local allowances” occurred, he would like to ask the Prime Minister, or more particularly perhaps the Minister of Finance, if, under the circumstances disclosed in the Estimates in regard to this item, it would not be well during the recess to go into the whole matter. Local allowances had increased by £50,000, although the area over which they were paid had not been extended. The hon. member mentioned that the local allowance with regard to the Pretoria Lunatic Asylum amounted to £1,092 last year, and to £2,458 this year, although only one extra official was employed. Again although there were eight less officials in the Customs Department the local allowances this year were £400 in excess of the amount last year. In the Post and Telegraph Department, however, the increases were so great that the matter should be looked into. In 1911-12 they were £1,618, in the following year they jumped to £12,000, the next year they reached £24,000, and this year they were set down at £48,000. He hoped the matter would be gone into during the recess.

said he would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on having met the views so frequently expressed from the Opposition side of the House, although he had done so only in a partial manner. The Prime Minister and his colleagues would now see that the Opposition was more correct in assessing the value of the services of Cabinet Ministers than they themselves had been They had met the Opposition half way, but the Opposition was thankful for small mercies, and it recognised that the force of criticism, although it had taken three years, had had a very good effect. The hon. member wished to know whether this was the correct way of making up the Estimates, seeing that in 1910-11 the Prime Minister took his vote as Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, but now he took it as Prime Minister alone. He (Sir Thomas) would move the reduction of the vote by £2,500, for the purpose of putting the salary of the Prime Minister at £1,000, and his salary as Minister of Native Affairs at £2,500. It was very invidious for an hon. member if he wished to bring a charge against a department to have to move the reduction of the salary of a prominent, official of that department. Many regrettable things which had occurred, some of them even this afternoon, would not have taken place if Government had paid heed to the pressure that had been brought to bear from the Opposition side of the House with regard to the salaries of Ministers and of another prominent officer. The proper way to deal with Mr. Speaker’s and the Ministers’ salaries was to embody them in a statute, so that they should not come under discussion every year.

They must be voted.

But only as a matter of form. If the Ministers’ and Mr. Speaker’s salaries were fixed by Statute they would not come up for discussion year by year, but the Minister knew that Parliament would not have fixed in an Act ,of Parliament the high amounts originally voted for their salaries. Continuing, Sir Thomas said that the Prime Minister had talked with a certain amount of levity in regard to the appointment of the High Commissioner. The delay in filling the post for such a long period in times of great political difference gave the country the impression that appointments of that sort were made for political reasons. It would be an ill-day for this country if ideas of that kind were to receive some justification in connection with the appointment of such a very high character as that of the High Commissioner, (Hear, hear.) He was not accusing the Government, for it might have found it very difficult to find a suitable person, but a delay of 9 months was not justified, and such a delay had a tendency to make people believe that it might have been caused from political considerations. If we could go on for 12 months without filling up this appointment surely the view must be that the position was unnecessary, and that we could continue to go on as we were without a High Commissioner in London. (Hear, hear.) That was a very fair conclusion to arrive at from the fact that the post had been practically left vacant for 9 or 10 months.

said the Government was anxious to have the post of High Commissioner filled in as dignified a manner as had been the case in the past. For that reason they had to be exceedingly careful lest they might make an appointment which did not meet with the general approval of the country. He had conducted a good deal of correspondence in this matter, and he could assure the hon. member that it was the last thing the Government desired to create the impression that they were actuated by political considerations.

They did not wish to make a political appointment, and had to go into the matter with the greatest care. He trusted the hon. member would be satisfied to leave it at that. As to the other point raised, he wished to point out that the salary of the Prime Minister in the past had been voted in conjunction with another Portfolio in the same way as it was to-day. That system should remain unchanged.

said his right hon. friend was not correct. He had a copy of the Estimates of 1910-11, and on vote 5 it read, “Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, £4,000.” That led the House to understand that the salary of the Minister of Agriculture was £3,000 and the salary of the Prime Minister £1,000. The Act of Union gave authority for the Governor-General to appoint ten officers of State to put in charge of the different departments, but surely it did not intend that a little department employing but ten people should be considered a department? Instead of a reduction of the vote, he would move that the £3,500 be the joint salary of the two offices of Prime Minister and Minister of Native Affairs.

rose to urge upon the Government the necessity of embodying these salaries, as the salaries of the judges were embodied, in a Bill. That was almost the invariable rule in other colonial Governments and in England. The money came out of the consolidated funds, and Parliament could not alter them. He thought it was a misfortune to have them variable in the way they were. What he had suggested could not, of course, be done this session, but it certainly ought to be done.

The amendment to reduce the vote was withdrawn.

said the same thing applied to other departments. They had the Minister of Mines and Education, the Minister of Finance and Defence, and he agreed with the hon. member that it was inconvenient when it was desirable to move the reduction of a responsible Minister’s salary. The hon. member went on to refer to a matter of £132 4s. 3d., the cost of a little trip which the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) took to England at the invitation of the Prime Minister, in connection with the Coronation. He thought the House should be allowed to make known its wishes in such matters. It was unfortunate that the two persons chosen for the pleasure trip should happen to have been the Chief Whips of two parties; it should not have been done; all moneys for such purposes should be voted.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Jeppe, and moved the reduction of the vote of the Prime Minister’s salary by £132 4s. 3d. He thought it was not right for the right hon. gentleman to pick out two hon. members to attend the Coronation. These members were “Whips” of the two principal parties, but he did not know whether the position of Whips was an official one. Surely it was going too far to spend the country’s money to enable two members to attend the Coronation. Why should these members attend the Coronation in charity? He, for one, objected to this.

replied that when the invitation was received for members to attend the Coronation, he had realised the necessity of someone to attend to correspondence and other matters connected with the visit and generally to attend to the official movements of the visitors. He had felt it incumbent on him to appoint a member from both sides of the House, and for that reason thought it fair that the passages of these two members should be paid.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he had not intended to reflect on the “bona fides” of the Prime Minister. However, the fact was that the Select Committee on Public Accounts had not approved of the payment of the amount of: £132 4s. 3d. He agreed with that view, and held that even though the amount was a small one, the expenditure was unauthorised, and if they started with small amounts they might go on to large sums. He certainly held that if people wished to go across the water they should do so at their own expense. The amount should be refunded to the Treasury.

said he had hoped that the hon. member for Boshof would have taken the opportunity during the dinner hour to consider the motion he had moved just before the suspension of business. The hon. member seemed suddenly concerned as to what was being done with the public funds. He (Mr. Botha) could not help having a suspicion that that sudden concern had something to do with his recent attitude towards the Prime Minister. On previous occasions they had had to bring up things against, the Government and against the Prime Minis ter. The hon. member for Boshof had then sat behind the Prime Minister, and they heard nothing of his concern as to the spending of public money. The hon. members for Woodstock and Caledon went to England with a delegation, not only from this country, but from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland. He (Mr. Botha) was one of them, and it was only right that he should say something to defend the Prime Minister. They all went across there as the guests of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and were to be entertained there for four weeks. It would have been extremely difficult for a number of people who had never met each other to have met together and stayed together as one family party, for one month, without friction arising. They had therefore asked those two gentlemen to act as they had acted during the session as Whips. The hon. member for Boshof spoke about the official recognition of Whips. If a man seceded from a party he was no longer amenable to a Whip. One of the members on the cross-benches had gone with them, and the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) would admit that he had received every assistance from the two gentlemen he referred to.

They did just as we did ourselves. I did not consider myself in their charge.

said they could not expect anything from the cross-benches—they could not expect common decency from them. For an attack to be made on two hon. members of that House in that way with the object of getting at the Prime Minister was a thing he would not countenance. He hoped the hon. member for Boshof would withdraw the amendment, which would only lead to bad feeling.

said he had been sorry to hear the hon. member for Commissioner-street referred to in the terms used by the last speaker. Every member of that House had the right to query expenditure, and he thought that was the attitude of the hon. member for Boshof. Two parties were represented in England at the invitation of the Imperial Parliament, and, as the hon. member had put it, there was fear of squabbling and they invited the Whips of the parties to go along, with them and keep order. Whether that, was necessary or not it was for the hon. gentleman (Mr. C. L. Botha) to say. They (the Labour Party) had sent one member of their, party, and he did not have a Whip to keep in order. That was not a personal attack on the two gentlemen concerned—the fact was that public money was under consideration. It had been well known that the hon. member for Commissioner-street was; the Whip for the Labour Party in that House, and if it had been a question of sending the official Whips of the party why was the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) not approached? If his expenses had been paid they would have cost less than it had cost for the other two gentlemen, but they (the Labour members) did not ask for that.

said he thought that the hon. gentleman who had just sat down as an authority on decency and indecency in this House was really too laughable. His career was of such a character that the less he said about that the better. (Laughter.)

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, am I to be continually subjected to these insulting attacks in this House? (Voices: “Yes,” and laughter.)

said that the hon. gentleman was very thin-skinned. (Hear, hear.) He did not mind what he said about other people, but when his own withers were wrung it was quite another story. Why hon. gentlemen who had always been opposed to economy in any shape or form should be so concerned about this little extravagance he (Sir T. W. Smartt) could not possibly imagine. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry that the hon. member for Boshof had introduced this amendment, because he thought it was a great mistake. He thought when this invitation came to representatives of this House from the House of Commons and the House of Lords to attend the Coronation of His Majesty, the Prime Minister was quite within his province in asking the Whips of the two parties to accompany the delegation and look after the many details Connected with that visit. When this matter was inquired into by the Public Accounts Committee and they found that all that was done was that the Government gave these two gentlemen a free passage out and back, he could not understand why all this extraordinary bother had arisen. It was unworthy of this committee to discuss such a thing. (Hear, hear.) One could only imagine that it had been introduced solely for the ventilation of some personal grievance or other. When these two gentlemen were asked by the Government to accompany this delegation, he thought the least the Government could do was to give them free passages.

said it was his intention, when he came into the House after the adjournment, to ask the hon. member for Boshof not to press his amendment, but his intention in that respect had been changed toy the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. When they had the leader of the Opposition daring to aver that this was quite a regular proceeding on the part of the Prime Minister, to pay the expenses of two gentlemen, part of a delegation

The Government did not pay their expenses.

Well, their passages. Here you have the Whip of each party having his expenses paid, so that both parties would be muzzled. It is a very good thing for the country that there is a third party. As for arguing that it was necessary to have the Whips there to make the arrangements for 13 or 14 members of this House who were the guests of the Committee in London, I say it is absurd.

said that he was a member of the delegation. He might mention that all the delegates from the other Parliaments not only had their passages paid, but all their expenses paid. He referred, to the delegates from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

said he was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to add the words “and Minister of Native Affairs” after “Prime Minister.”

said that this matter was on all fours, on a very small scale, with what occurred in January when the Government committed: an illegality and then came to Parliament for an indemnity. This autocratic Government did just what they liked, they ignored the usual procedure of getting Parliamentary authority, and they felt perfectly sure that, whatever was done, they could come to the Supreme Court of Parliament and get an indemnity.

briefly outlined the proceedings in the Public Accounts Committee with reference to this matter and said that, on the evidence of the hon. member for Caledon, he felt that there was some justification for the action taken by the Government. (Hear, hear.) The great majority, of the Committee, after hearing the hon. member’s explanation, decided to let the matter alone.

said that they had no desire to question the honour of these two hon. members, but, he asked, what business had the Prime Minister to appoint these two gentlemen to accompany the delegation? He had studiously avoided moving the reduction of the amount, but after the speeches that had been made he hoped the hon. member for Boshof would press his amendment.

said he proposed withdrawing the amendment. It was a pity, however, that the hon. member for Bloemfontein could not dispuss any matter without introducing personality, Seeing that the hon. member for Bloemfontein accompanied the deputation, he (the speaker) realised that the Prime Minister felt, the necessity of sending the two Whips. (Laughter.) The hon. member could not deal with any matter without being personal. He would now withdraw the amendment.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Van Niekerk was, however, put.

raised the question of the desirability of appointing a Commission to go, not only into the financial relations which existed between the Provincial Administrations and the Central Government, but also to make inquiry into some other form of local government for South Africa. It would take some time for such a Commission to do its work. Its report would afterwards have to be sent broadcast throughout the Union. He pointed out that the four years’ period ended in 1917, and it was high time the Government took some action in the matter.

did not think there was any need for great hurry in the matter. If they instituted that inquiry at the beginning of the four years’ period they might find the results very different from what they would have been had the inquiry been instituted towards the end of the four years’ period. He pointed out that they were getting valuable experience; they had seen what had happened in the Transvaal under the Act of Union, and they were getting important experience in the Cape Province, and changes were taking place in the Other Provinces, too. An inquiry like that would not take years to complete. A body of capable Commissioners would finish their task in six months. Did the hon. member think it would take two or three years?

It will take quite twelve months.

said that in six months’ time they ought to complete the work, and the public should be given six months to digest the result of the work. In has opinion they should wait until the end of the period. Experience was being gained, and if they were not in too great a hurry in appointing a Commission, the result of the work might be much more useful than it otherwise would be If they appointed the Commission and got their findings it might be that at the end of the four years’ period the facts would entirely falsify the recommendations.

said that they could take a horse to the water, but they could not make it drink, and it was no use giving words of wisdom to the Minister of Finance, for he would do nothing. Certainly they might, as the Minister hoped, gain experience, but it would not be all of a valuable character. He was not sure the experience that was going on in the Transvaal was valuable, for it looked like showing that they could not carry on at all, which was the breaking up of a Government.

He viewed with the greatest apprehension also what was going on in the Cape Colony. As far as he could see there was a dead set being made—he might be wrong—against the Divisional Councils. The most valuable thing they had got in South Africa in the direction of local government was their Divisional Councils. (Hear, hear.) They might not be perfect, but they interested the people in local government, and at the present time there was a dead set being made at them. He could not conceive any greater disaster to South Africa than their killing the Divisional Councils. He thought there were certain faults in the details of the system of Divisional Councils, but he thought that any proposal to have any further centralisation of control in the matter of taxation was going to strike a blow at those institutions from which they would never recover. It was was very easy to knock such things down, but it was a very difficult thing to build them up. Proceeding, he said he did not regard the delay of the proposed Commission as valuable for the reasons given by the Minister. If any man should like to see that matter settled it should be the Minister of Finance of the Union; but he took it in a light manner and said let them see what might come.

was understood to ask whether he could deal with the native question at that stage?

On the next vote.

The hon. member can discuss the general question on the next vote.

The vote, as amended, was agreed to.

alluding to the Natives Land Act and the interview the native deputation had had with the Minister of Native Affairs recently, said they had not received from the Minister the help which they might have received, as representing a considerable portion of the population of the Union. They had brought down a petition to be presented to Parliament. It was quite true that they had delayed very much with that, and had brought it down only a couple of weeks, or ten days, before the time they thought they had to sail for England, but still there had been time to present that petition to the House, and if the Government had chosen to give an opportunity for an hour or two’s discussion on it, that petition might have been discussed by that House. He wanted to clear these people from the unfair charge which had been foisted upon them, that they did not want to present that petition to the House, or that they wanted to go past that House. That had not been the case He (Mr. Schreiner) had kept silent about that, but he thought that the present was a fitting opportunity of referring to it. He wanted to make it clear that these people wanted to present that petition to the House. When he had been consulted by these people, he had said, by all means let them present the petition and get the Government to give two or three hours in Parliament to a discussion upon it, but the Minister would not assist in this. Dealing with the substance of the petition, it appeared that evictions had taken place of natives from farms, and that no provision had been made for land to which these natives could go. While the law was being carried out in regard to evictions, the other part of the Act was inoperative, as the Commission which was to be appointed had not yet been appointed. The existing native locations were already insufficient for the accommodation of the native people. They wanted the repeal of the Native Land Act, or, failing that, the repeal of certain sections, and they wanted the repeal of the Squatters’ Act. That was the substance of the petition. Proceeding, Mr. Schreiner said that the general public had not heard about hardships, and thought that all these stories of hardship were a myth, and that there were not such things at all. From the reply which had been given to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar) that day it appeared that there were hardships, and he (Mr. Schreiner) had also known for some time that there were hardships. He thankfully allowed that the Government had, on the whole, endeavoured to administer that law as sympathetically as, should he say, the late Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Sauer) could have done had he lived, and his death was a loss which they all deplored. He (Mr. Schreiner) did not think that the Government knew of all the hardships which had been inflicted. The hon. member proceeded to quote from a paper which he had in his possession, of certain individual cases of evictions in certain portions of the Free State. The evictions numbered 7, 12, 4, 3 and 100 in certain portions of that Province, and in Natal notices had been given to certain heads of kraals residing in five places to remove. In Ladysmith, Natal, there were 55 individual cases mentioned out of 79, and they had about 310 others. Referring to the Cape Province, he said that the fact was that the Natives Land Act had inflicted very little hardship on the native people there, and because of that it was thought that no hardships had been inflicted on the other native people. It was not the 1½ million native people in the Cape Province they must think of but the other 2½ million people in the Union. It might be said that he was not their representative, but all the more reason if they had no representative, that he should pay attention to their needs. There had been undoubted hardships inflicted in the O.F.S., the Transvaal, and Natal. People had been evicted and sent about wandering with their families and cattle, because there was no land for them and no reserve.

said that he did not pose as an authority on native matters. He had listened to the statement of the hon. member for Tembuland with great interest. He was glad to hear, the explanation that he gave with regard to the native deputation which had recently gone to England, because there was an impression in Natal that these native gentlemen had ignored not only this House, but the Government as well, in connection with this matter of the petition. He quite, agreed, with what the hon. member had said about the futility of this deputation to England under the circumstances, and he hoped the hon. member was right in saying that the deputation were thoroughly well aware before they left these shores that their mission was likely to be futile and useless, because, had they been under any other impression, it was probable they would come back some what embittered by the result of their visit to England. He hoped they would feel that nay redress that they were to get must come from the people of this country and the Government of this country. With regard to what the hon. member had said about the evictions and the trouble under the Natives Land Act, he (Mr. Henderson) thought it was necessary that they should have some authoritative statement from the Government in connection with this matter. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the necessity of the appointment of a Native Advisory Council as soon as possible. The institution of Native Councils such as they had had experience of in Natal was desirable, sc that information could reach the Government as to the best method of dealing with the natives. The formation of such a Council placed on a proper basis would be of immense Advantage. In conclusion, he said he thought the remarks of the hon. member for ’Tembuland should carry more weight with the Ministry than they sometimes seemed to carry. With reference to agricultural education for the natives, he thought the Government should encourage them so that they would be able to help themselves.

wanted some information regarding a balance of money which represented grants for the improvements of natives.

said he would like to impress upon the Prime Minister the desirability of putting that question of native recruiting upon a proper basis. He had heard with a great deal of regret the remarks of the hon. member for Tembuland about those advances and so on. When the Minister of Railways was in Ministry with him (Mr. Merriman) their main object was to keep down those advances as far as possible. As it was done in the Transkei, a trader who was an agent for one of those recruiting agencies made a native an advance of £5, which had to be spent at the trader’s shop. Then the native got into debt and was whipped away to the Rand. They were getting up a traders’ recruiting association in the Transkei. It would be a trade in black ivory which they used to hear so much about. He did not need to appeal to the hon. Minister to exercise a strict control over such matters. Proceeding, he said it had always been a puzzle to him that three-quarters of a million was spent hr recruiting, while De Beers did not spend a single penny and got as many natives as they wanted. He thought if three-quarters of a million was scent in the direction of improving the conditions on the mines they would get a better supply and a better class of labour. With regard to the Director of Natives, he thought they had no better friend than the Director of Natives on the Rand. He hoped the Prime Minister would take a very serious view of native recruiting.

also appealed to the Minister to look very closely into the matter of native recruitings. He agreed with the, remarks of the right hon. gentleman, who, however, had not gone far enough. There were other ways in which pressure was brought to bear on the natives. Often pressure was put upon the parents, who were allowed to get into the debt of one of the trading stores. They were then squeezed until they allowed their sons to go to work on the Rand. The Prime Minister should, keep his eye upon the methods, employed round about the Court-houses. When judgment, was given against natives for debt there was always some white man, prepared, to meet the debt either on the condition, that the debtor himself went to work on the Rand, or if he was too old one of his sons. Pressure was also,; brought on, the chiefs to get natives to go to work on the Rand. Mr. Madeley appealed to the Prime Minister to inquire very closely and periodically into the, question of the health of the natives on the Rand. They had been told that the health of the natives was improving. It was absolutely impossible however, knowing what they knew with regard to the white men that thousands of cases of miners’ phthisis had not occurred amongst the natives. The natives should be thoroughly examined at close intervals with a, view to stopping their working when they, showed any signs of: miners’ phthisis.

associated himself with the remarks of the hon. member for Durban, Berea, and of the hon. member for Springs. He urged that it would Be an advantage to the natives if agents were appointed by the Government to keep control of those who were sent to the Rand,, and see that money was sent to their homes to be distributed through the magistrates to their families. He mentioned cases of natives going from Natal to work on the mines, and leaving their families to starve. There was no doubt that the natives were imposed upon in many ways, and it was the duty of the Government to protect them. With regard to agriculture he thought the natives would willingly contribute to a School of Agriculture to teach them how to cultivate land. They were looking for guidance in that matter. He agreed with the suggestion that Native Councils should be instituted.

said that he wished to express his surprise and regret at the tone of the hon. member for Tembuland. He had thought that the hon. member would have thanked the Government for what they had done to better the lot of the native; but, instead the hon. member had attacked the protector of natives in Johannesburg. That gentleman was, in the true sense of the word, the protector of the natives, and he had done great, work’ in the interests of the natives. The hon. member should not make the position that gentleman more, difficult, because he could assure him that as it was there, were many; people who did, not want him (the Protector), just because, it was his to look after the interests of the natives No one had rendered greater service to the natives than that gentleman, and he (the Prime Minister), who knew of the work done by him, could only express the highest appreciation of his services. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Tembuland had referred to the deputation which had gone to England, and he had given the impression that it was the fault of the Department of Native Affairs that a petition of the deputation had not been placed before this House. He (the Minister) had, as soon as he heard of the intentions of the deputation, done his utmost to induce them to bring their petition before this House. He had even sept the Secretary for Native Affairs to Kimbeyley when the Native, Congress was sitting there to advise them-not to send a deputation to England, but their attempts had been in vain. Even the best friends of the’ natives had advised them not to go to England, but the reply of the deputation had been that unless the Natives Land Act was repealed they would go there. Of course, it was quite impossible for him to agree to that. If his advice had been taken this House would have had every opportunity of discussing the matter. Proceeding the hon. Minister said that he had explained the position fully to the deputation and had told them that the Natives Land Act did not aim at persecuting the natives, but aimed at achieving what was their good, and what was the good of this country. Nothing, however, helped. He had told them also that here in this country the question could be solved, and that it was only in this, country that it could be done, but they had been unwilling to accept his counsel. How was it possible for him to agree to the cancellation of the Natives Lands Act, as was demanded?, Of course, they would have to wait for the report of the Commission which had been appointed.

The hon. member for Tembuland had mentioned a number of hard cases. Of course under any law there must be a number of hard cases. But he (the Minister) had told the deputation that he had given standing instructions to the magistrates throughout the country that if they found anyone in their district ejecting natives from the farms they were to make in quiries and report to him. He had in all those cases which had been brought to his notice used the influence of his department to get the people evicted placed in locations or on some other farm. Only yesterday he had dealt with cases like that. He had done his utmost in every respect to alleviate any distress that might be caused, and that was the attitude he proposed to continue. The Department of Native Affairs was there, not to persecute the natives, but to see that they received justice and fair play, and so long as he was there, he would see that that policy was carried out. Of course, It was unavoidable that a certain amount of hardship, should be cheated, but he would do his utmost to make that hardship as little as possible. (Ministerial cheers.) The Commission Appointed under the Natives Land Act was at present making its inquiries, and until that Commission reported, nothing could be done. Proceeding, General Botha said that it was his policy to see to it that a feeling of contentment and satisfaction was created among the native population. A number of complaints had been referred to the Commission for consideration. Dealing with the question of native recruiting, he said he quite agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West in regard to the recruiting going on in the Transkei. If there was one thing which was wrong and detrimental, it was the system of advances to the natives; it was a kind of system under which the natives were made slaves. From the day that system of advances had been modified a much larger number of natives than before had proceeded to work on the Rand. The native no longer required to be led by the hand to find his way to Johannesburg. The native should be free to go to work where he pleased, which he was not under the recruiting and advance system. He should be free to choose and free to offer his labour to whom he liked. (Ministerial cheers.) The Minister of Native Affairs proceeded to say that the chief magistrate had been appointed at Johannesburg to inquire into native grievances. That gentleman had been instructed to go to the Transkei and to other parts to make inquiries into the system of making cash advances to natives. He (the Prime Minister) wished to quote just a few points from the report of that official (Mr. Buckle).

In the first place he said that the system of deferred Pay should be introduced for all the natives, security for due payment of such deferred wages being required from anyone recruiting under this system. Cash advances, Mr. Buckle held, should be sufficient only to pay for railway fare and matters like that. The Department of Native Affairs, the Minister went on, had already induced one of the biggest firms of native recruiters to establish a deferred wage system in the Transkei. One of the effects of this would be to get the native to spend his money where he liked, and not to get into debt. The principle laid down in that report was a principle the Government was going to stand by, whether recruiters liked it or not (Ministerial cheers.) At present they had in one district alone of the Cape no less than 140 recruiters, and that was ridiculous. It was the desire of the Department to facilitate matters for natives who desired to go to work—(hear, hear)—and to protect natives as much as possible. In regard to the question of the death rate raised by the hon. member for Springs, it was always the, desire of the Department to reduce: that death rate, and it was satisfactory to note, that great improvement had been brought about in that respect. From 28,8 per thousand in 1910 the death rate among natives on the mines ‘fell in 1911 to 27, in 1912 to 23, in 1913 to 21, and up to the end of May this year it had been reduced to 17 per thousand. As to the contention that nothing was being done for the natives from an agricultural point of view, the Minister said that some six or seven experts were holding demonstrations in the Transkei. These demonstrations were paid for not by the Native Council but by the taxpayers. He hoped more would be done in that respect in the future. In regard to the report of the Commission under the Natives Land Act, the Minister said that that Commission was going on with its proceedings and should not be hurried. Whether it would be finished in the two years provided he did not know, but the questions dealt with were of such a magnitude that the members should be given every possible opportunity to bring about the best results. Replying to a question by Mr. Henderson, the Minister of Native Affairs said it was not proposed to extend the Natal system of Native Councils, which would involve too great an expenditure. (Hear, hear.) In answer to a question by Mr. Jagger, the Minister, in conclusion, said that certain moneys from natives in the Free State were still in the hands of the Government. The natives there had been consulted as to what should be done with that money and they had expressed a desire that it should be used for higher education, and it was now proposed to establish a high school for natives at Thaba Nchu or elsewhere. In conclusion, the Minister of Native Affairs reiterated his intention of seeing to it that the natives received that protection and justice which was due to them. (Cheers.)

said he would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the great hardship which was experienced in his constituency in regard to getting contracts signed for the hiring of boys. He would be glad if the Minister would look into the matter, also of what became of these labour fees.

said he understood that the right hon. gentleman had not touched upon certain points that he had made. With regard to the death-rate at Johannesburg among natives, he trusted that the Minister would maintain a close examination of these natives, as his information was that these boys did not always die in Johannesburg.

I will deal with that matter.

added that there was also the point with regard to the methods employed to force natives to work.

said he desired to call attention to the increase in the cost of Administration in connection with this Department. During the last three years the expenditure had gone; up, and On the Estimates for the present year there was an increase of £25,000, as compared with the cost last year. That, he thought, required some explanation. Then there was a large increase in clerical assistants. It was rather remarkable that this increase of clerical assistants seemed to run right throughout these votes. He also saw that the transport and subsistence allowance had practically doubled. There was a large increase in the item of inspectors, agricultural supervisors and superintendents of natives. He saw there was an item of £600 for the purchase of a motor-car for the Chief Commissioner at Umtata. One did not mind these increases so much if one saw some evidence of reductions in other directions.

replied that in the Orange Free State the Director had appointed these clerical assistants, who were found to be necessary as a result of the new Act. They had been appointed not at the central office, but in outside places. As a result of their appointment, more moneys would come in than would have to be expended. It was the same;n Natal. These clerical assistants were absolutely necessary under the new Act and were doing work which was formerly done by the police. He was taking every care, he must say, to see that no unnecessary expenditure was incurred.

said that the responsibility, which he had referred to as resting on the Prime Minister was not that he had advised or had not advised the native deputation not to go to England, but when they came to him he did not say to them: “Present your petition this afternoon, and to-morrow it will be discussed, and you will know the decision in the House to-morrow.” That would have been a friendly and just act. The petition should have been presented and discussed the next day. They would still have gone to Pingland. They were quite determined to do that, but when the Prime Minister said that Parliament would never give them what they were asking for, so it was no use their asking for it, they simply said they would just have to go. The hon. member then referred to the attack made by the right hon. member for Victoria West upon the traders of the Transkei. He said the right hon. member was always ready to vilify them, but he could say from knowledge of them that on the whole they were men of sterling character, who did not live to fleece the natives, but were recognised by them as their friends. The hon. member, in conclusion, referred to the change which had been introduced into the Native Affairs Department of not putting the numbers in the first column. That seemed to indicate a difference between the natives and the Europeans.

The vote was agreed to.

Vote 7, Interior, £106,519, was put.

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