from J. J. Swart and 31 others, oyster diggers, residing in Mossel Bay and elsewhere, praying that the close season for oyster digging may be abolished or shortened.

from J. Magheta, formerly native warder, Wepener Gaol, for relief.

brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

The report was ordered to be printed and set down for consideration on Monday next.

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

Justices of the Peace and Oaths Act.

Fruit Export Act, The Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Act.

said that he desired to reply to two questions which were standing over from the previous day.

had asked: (1) Whether his attention had been directed to the article on “tick proof virus” which appears on page 1,675 of the “Farmers’ Weekly” of the 15th June; and (2) whether the Agricultural Department will take immediate steps to verify the statement contained in the said article made by Mr. H. F. Walker, M.L.A., in Australia, to the effect that a cow belonging to Mr. Munro Hall remained free of ticks for four months, although grazing with other cows infested with ticks?

said the reply was as follows: (1) Yes. (2) My department has been in communication with the Queensland Government for the last twelve months or so in the matter of the alleged remedy, but so far, I understand, it has not been proved to the satisfaction of that Government.

had also asked the Minister: (1) Whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the conditions upon which Professor Hedmyer was engaged; and (2) whether it is proposed upon the termination of Professor Hedmyer’s contract to engage some other scientist or scientists to assist Sir Arnold Theiler in the investigation of gal-lamziekte ?

said the reply was as follows: (1) Yes. (2) This will a 11. depend upon the result of Professor Hedmyer’s investigations.

moved the third reading of the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Bill.

said he was extremely sorry that the Minister in charge of this Bill, after the great criticism to which certain clauses had been subjected, should have simply moved in a formal manner the third reading. Last March the Government proposed to introduce into this House for its second reading a Bill called the Peace Preservation and Criminal Law Amendment Bill, under the provisions of which they proposed to legalise the imposition of Martial Law in this country without the necessity of coming to the House for an indemnity. In the present Bill the Government proposed to legalise the deportation of British subjects without having to come to the House for an indemnity, or even having a recommendation to carry out such a provision. He acknowledged that the Bill now before the House was a great improvement upon the Peace Preservation Bill which the Government first proposed to introduce, and he acknowledged that the Bill in its present form was a great improvement on the Riotous Assemblies Bill as it was first introduced into this House and into Committee. The penalties that were laid down in that Bill had been considerably diminished, and he thought most favourably modified. Certain objectionable clauses of the Bill had been removed, but, unfortunately, the Government were not prepared to listen to the representations that were made in connection with what hon. members on that side considered the most objectionable provisions that were laid down in clause 19. He recognised that, as the Minister of Defence said in that speech of his of almost 5£ hours’ duration at the opening of the session in connection with the unfortunate events of July and January last, the state of our criminal law was of such a character as not to allow proper provision being made for maintaining law and order in the country, and he recognised that some alterations of our laws in this regard were necessary. He recognised that, in so far as clause 19 was concerned, the Minister had agreed to certain amendments of an important character. The invidious distinction between persons born in South Africa and persons born outside South Africa had been removed from clause 19, though they had it, on the authority of the Minister of Justice himself, that, though that had been put into the Bill, it made no practical difference whatsoever. Under the circumstances he thought the House took upon itself a serious responsibility when it laid down in a Statute that a Minister of the Crown or of the Government should have the power of deporting an individual for what was a political offence. (Hear, hear.) He did not think if that Bill were placed before the country the majority of the electorate would ratify it, if they knew what it might lead to. Here they were introducing in their legislation a system whereby they placed in the hands of a Minister, on his own ipse dixit, the power, after conviction for an offence for which the major penalty was three months’ imprisonment or a fine of £50, to deport people who committed any of the offences mentioned in the Bill from this country.

The House had no right or authority from the electors of the country to place such a clause on the Statute-book. While acknowledging the necessity of some of the provisions; he expressed deep regret at the attitude of the Government with regard to this particular clause, and he said he could not accept the responsibility of voting for the third reading of the Bill. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

seconded the amendment.

said he heartily agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in the concluding words of his speech. The amendment was what he (Mr. Creswell) had risen to move. What he failed to understand, agreeing so heartily as he did with him on the point of deporting citizens without trial, was why, on the first reading of the Bill, the hon. member and his party were silent; in fact they actually voted against the cross-benches on the point. When the second reading of the Bill was before the House, the hon. member for Fort Beautort and his party voted against the amendment put forward by the cross-benches. They took it that when a Bill which struck at principles which they held very dear was brought before the House it was the duty of the Opposition to refuse assent to the second reading of the Bill, because of principles upon which they could not see eye to eye with the Government. He agreed with the amendment that had been moved, and, perhaps, the last of the conclusion of the hon. member. This was one of those cases when the Opposition had failed to do its duty at an important juncture. They on the cross-benches objected to the Bill, on the ground that, ignoring the fact that the only riots within recent times had occurred, because the right of public meeting was refused, it proceeded to lay down the right to prohibit meetings by the Minister. The Government believed it better to give this power to the Minister, whereas they, on those benches, believed that the right time for the executive to interfere was when the public abused this right. They thought that riots would be prevented by giving the people the fullest right of the safety valve of public speaking. They objected to the second portion of the Bill because it made special offences with big penalties in connection with Trade Unions. The object of the Minister and the majority was inspired by their dislike and their thinly veiled hostility to the growth of Trade Unionism. He pointed out that the majority of these offences could be dealt with under the common law, and he failed to see why they were specially disgraceful because they were committed in connection with employment. In connection with the use of epithets, he Stated that during the committee stage of the Bill the Minister of Mines and Industries made a significant statement when he said, in defence of this section of the Bill, that anyone who knew what went on during the last year in Johannesburg would have known how these epithets were resented. Why should not the House recognise that if such epithets were libellous that a man had the remedy-under the common law? The House should legislate in such a way that men would not go back on their pals. Then they had the institution of the special court and the prohibition of the right of trial by jury. They, on those benches, believed in the old safeguard, especially in political cases.

The Attorney-General was a political officer and they objected to the protection of trial by jury being removed by any less authority than the judicial authority of the Supreme Court. Then they came to the deportation clause, and he asserted that the people who invited that Bill, the people who invited that clause, were the Opposition Party sitting on those benches. By their very action in condoning the deportation of nine citizens of the Union and by their consistent support of the Government they had asked for that Bill. It was too late now to expect that that Bill would be thrown out. It was no use the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) sheltering himself by saying that in January, in voting for the perpetual banishment of those men, the Opposition did so in order to indemnify the Government for something which had already been done in good faith. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. J. X. Merriman) in eloquent language had said that he would indemnify the Government because they had acted in good faith, but that when they asked him to provide in cold blood for deportation there he and the Government must part. The Leader of the Opposition and his party had voted for the condemnation of those nine men to perpetual banishment without trial and without any semblance of a trial. Where were those great constitutional doctrines then, those doctrines that the hon. gentleman now brought forward? Was it by any chance that the elections which had taken place since that time had stimulated the hon. gentleman’s intellect and wakened his historic memories, and vivified his sense of those historic traditions, the rights of British subjects, of which they had heard that morning? The action of the Opposition had invited that Bill. When the Bill was first published in December last it contained many of the same sort of provisions as were now included in it. To add to that they had had the Opposition’s attitude on the Labour member’s motion when leave was asked to introduce the Bill, when they (the Labour members) called attention to that extension of the principle of deportation. The Opposition then supported the Government in carrying that Bill a stage further. If that principle was so vital why did not the Opposition again warn the Government about it? No, they helped and supported the Government and led the Government to believe that they would have the entire support of the Opposition in that matter. Now, at the last moment, the Opposition woke up to the fact that they had betrayed the interests of the people of this country by not acting as an Opposition should act, and by not opposing the Government when the Government ought to be opposed. (Opposition dissent.) The inefficiency of that Parliament was due no less to the attitude of the Opposition than it was to the attitude of the Government. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed to resent that. Let that hon. member cast his mind back to the Committee stages of that Bill and consider whether the Government were not justified in thinking that the Opposition were not serious in opposition to the Bill. In Committee the hon. member for Fordsburg alone out of the whole of the Opposition was in his seat. The Opposition was in the Government’s pocket, and the front bench of the party had failed to oppose that measure. They (the Labour Party) would vote against the third reading, as they had voted against the first and second readings of the Bill. The country disapproved of the Bill, and the blame for that Bill being on the Statute-book would be upon the Opposition no less than upon the Government. If the Opposition had played the game as an Opposition and opposed that Bill, that Bill would never have found a place on the Statute book. (Labour cheers.)

rose to speak.

pointed out that the hon. member had seconded Sir T. W. Smartt’s motion, and he could not speak again.

said he proposed to vote for the third reading of the Bill, but he did not think he would be justified in doing so without giving some reasons for the step he proposed to take. He agreed with a great deal of what had been said by the hon. members for Jeppe and Fort Beaufort with regard to some parts of the Bill. Hon. members must understand what the alternative was He regarded that Bill as a Bill as far as possible to confine the operations of Martial Law. They had found that those matters which the hon. members had objected to could be done at the present time, and it seemed to him that if the Bill were thrown out they would find themselves in the position they had been in in January, the Government having complete power to do everything that was supposed to be authorised by that Bill and a great number of other things as well. Meetings had been prohibited without, that Bill. They were not going to prevent meetings being prohibited by voting against the third reading. Special trials were held and special crimes created without that Bill. He was an opponent of the whole principle of deportation from beginning to end. The Minister had said that he did not think that the deportation clause applied to people born in this country, but he (Mr. Fremantle) did not know that the Minister was right. Sedition depended on the interpretation of the word, and many of the best men in the world had been guilty of sedition. Therefore he did not think the House was right in laying the flattering unction to its soul that that provision was not going to affect people born in South Africa.

In regard to people not born in this country, he deplored the deportation proposal because that was weakening the attachment to South Africa of large numbers of people who came here wishing to make this country their homo. In this matter the Ministry was taking a course directly in opposition to the principles represented on the Government side of the House. The question had been discussed as to whether people born overseas were as good South Africans as those born here. There was always a certain rightful regard for the country of one’s birth, a regard which they would always continue to cherish and which hon. members born in South Africa would not respect them if they did not continue to cherish. (Cheers.) It was unfortunate that this apple of discord should have been thrown down and that people should have been told that they were only citizens of this country so long as they did not commit certain political offences. This would prevent the settlement of people in this country and retard the growth of that good feeling which was sincerely desired by the Prime Minister and those who were unfortunately advocating this clause. But men had been deported without this Bill, and to reject this Bill would not stop deportations. The same applied to all the objectionable features in this Bill. With regard to intimidation, it was a great mistake to make special exception in the case of words like “scabs” and “blackleg.” There were other words which were much more offensive.

Hooligans.

The other day a member of the Ministry was called a renegade because he bore an English name. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said the country required and desired a Bill for the preservation of order, and on the whole the measure was very moderate compared to what might have been expected, in view of the excitement which prevailed when the House met at the beginning of the session, and he congratulated the Minister on dropping what was offensive to a large number of people. The power to imprison a man in the Transvaal for three weeks without bringing a charge against him had been taken away from the Government. Moreover, if the Government made use of the dangerous power given them they must now report the circumstances to Parliament, which was thus invited to intervene if it thought proper. They could not go behind Parliament, and with or without this Bill Parliament was supreme. Parliament had the power in its own hands, and at the present time Parliament was not in a mood to exercise discretion in a very gentle way with regard to industrial unrest. But he thought that mood would tend to industrial unrest. As long as that was so he regarded the Bill as one for decreasing irritation, and for that reason he thought the measure with all its blemishes should be passed. He did not, however, regard the measure as the last word in this matter, for the fires to which the Minister had referred had not died down to the extent which he hoped they would in the course of the next few years. The time would come when it would be desirable to reconsider, with a calmness which was impossible at the present time, several provisions of the Bill.

said he did not vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he was rather surprised to hear from the hon. member for Jeppe the taunts that hon. members on the Opposition side were in the pockets of the Government. He (Mr. Struben) did not owe his position in this House to the Government. (Cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Struben said that a scab was a person who did not join a Trade Union or who refused to be dragooned by the executive of a Trade Union. Free workers should be protected against the use of abusive language. What hon. members on the cross-benches were afraid of was the vote of moderate men in the Trade Union. When men refused to be subservient to the behest of the Trade Union executive they should be allowed to follow their own inclinations and receive protection in the carrying out of their lawful occupation. If people were prepared to go on with their work he was prepared to assist and protect them, whether as a member of the Defence Force, a special constable, or in any other capacity. But the members of the Defence Force who came out to do their duty during the recent disturbances were called “scabs. ” In conclusion, Mr. Struben said that he was not ashamed of any attitude he had taken up on the question of deportation or on this Bill. As a lawyer this principle of deportation was absolutely abhorrent to him, and he would support the motion of the hon. member, for Fort Beaufort, (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member for Newlands had said that no one ever denied that natives were threatened that, if they did net come out on strike in Johannesburg or district, they would be blown up with dynamite. He (Mr. Andrews) denied that. (Hear, hear.) He challenged the hon. member to adduce evidence, notwithstanding what he might see in the pious report of a Commission or a committee, that that was a fact.

What is a fact?

I don’t know that I need go over it again.

I should like to know.

Then you can read the paper to-morrow morning. I am not going over my speech again for the benefit of the hon. member. He generally indulges in conversation, very loud conversation, when hon. members on these benches are speaking. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, Mr. Andrews said that, in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage, the fact was that the Government had power to institute Martial Law, whether this Bill passed or not, under similar circumstances to those that existed in January last It all depended upon the temper of Parliament, and the Government summed up the temper of this House correctly when they instituted Martial Law last January. Referring to the attitude of the hon. member for Newlands towards this Bill, Mr. Andrews said that the hon. member for Newlands did not vote against the second reading of the Bill.

I did not vote for it.

No, but the point is that the hon. member did not vote in the minority against the Bill. Proceeding, Mr. Andrews said that the only thing that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort objected to in this Bill, it appeared, was the deportation clause. He did not object in the least to many of the most objectionable provisions in this Bill, because, he (Mr. Andrews) took it, they were only levelled against one section of the community, the Trade Union section.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the Government and their friends would give their whole-hearted support to anything that would restrict the activities of the Trade Unions movement. Alluding to clause 11, Mr. Andrews asked what was to be the position of a Trade Union which had the right, and, according to its rules, had the duty imposed upon it, of putting in its reports from month to month or quartet to quarter the names of all the members who had been excluded from that Union? Were the officers to be penalised because they made up their reports in the usual way? This law would be passed, but it would not work. These reports would continue to be made up in the old way. Trade Unionism had come to stay, whether for good or evil. There had never been a time in the history of industrialised countries when Trade Unionism was so strong as it was to-day. They, on the cross-benches, had nothing to thank the Opposition for in the attitude they took up to-day. When the Opposition might have been of some avail and when they might have shown the Government that it was dangerous to go so far as they attempted to go, they did not do so, and, therefore, whether they voted against the third reading of this Bill to-day or not, members on the cross-benches would not be deceived, the country would not be deceived, and he did not think it would have the desired effect of enabling members of the so-called official Opposition to say to the electors in the very near future that they were against this thing and that it went through by reason of the overwhelming power of the Government.

said he rose for the purpose of correcting a very curious misapprehension that had taken place. The hon. member who spoke just now said that proclaiming Martial Law depended upon the temper of Parliament. It depended upon the temper of the Governor. He seemed to be ignored in these matters completely. They could not proclaim Martial Law without the assent of the Governor. He should think that the Governor with a Bill like this would be very careful before proclaiming Martial Law in a time of peace. They heard the same thing about dissolution. It was too often forgotten that it was for the Governor to say whether there should be a dissolution. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that he agreed very much with what had been said by the hon. member for Uitenhage. On the whole, it was better to have this Bill, even with these objectionable qualities, which might perhaps, if his hon. friend the Minister of Justice listened to the words of wisdom which had been addressed to him, be toned down, some of them, elsewhere. At the same time they should never reject this Bill simply to please a class of gentlemen who proclaimed and preached the Social war. The lovers of law and order surely were not going to vote against this Bill simply because they did not approve of a certain clause which he disapproved of also? He was amused at the sensitiveness of some of his hon. friends about epithets being used. They seemed to forget that amongst the objectionable epithets of the great Dr. Johnson, if he mistook not, he interpreted patriotism as being “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (Laughter.) He also had some nasty remarks to make about excise officers. (Renewed laughter.) He (Mr. Merriman) thought they might really read this Bill a third time.

said that if the Government had the power to proclaim Martini Law when they did so, then they had the power to do so now. He (Mr. Fawcus) had voted against this measure. He thought it was not necessary that they should pass legislation, either remedial or repressive, because he was convinced that this was not an industrial country. The hon. member for George Town had referred to the spread of Trade Unionism, but he (Mr. Fawcus) contended that that was due to the legalised support of ruffianism. When Mr. Asquith gave over his country and allowed ruffianism to have control, then Trade Unionism was able to grow, and gained the terrible position it had gained at the present time. He was very glad that the epithets had not been specially set down in the Bill, and he hoped that when the first man was brought up for using language likely to cause a breach of the peace he would be smartly dealt with.

said he opposed the deportation of the nine men in January, and he was still opposed to anything of the kind. He approved of a great many of the provisions of this Bill, which had been forced on the Government by the Labourites, Socialists, and Syndicalists. He did not think there was any necessity for punishing by deportation, which was out of date, and he thought the Government would have done better to have given each of the deportees a year’s hard labour. (Laughter.) Because of the deportation clause he could not support the Bill.

said the hon. member for Umlazi had stated that he voted against the second reading, and the ground he gave on that occasion was that the Bill was far too Socialistic.

I never spoke at all.

You have spoken on the Bill at different times. Continuing, he asked the right hon. member for Victoria West if he thought the Government would be prepared to proclaim Martial Law if it had not the support not only of the members of its own party but the Opposition. In spite of what the Leader of the Opposition had said, he (Mr. Boydell) contended that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and his party were as much responsible as the Government for the fact that this Bill was now being placed on the Statute-book. He thought that the Bill was far more calculated to create than prevent disorder. He considered the deportation clause would be a blot on the Statute-book, and said there could be no peace in South Africa while this Bill remained on the Statute-book.

said that the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, had said that the Government would not have proclaimed Martial Law unless it knew it had the support of the Leader of the Opposition and his party.

I said that.

said he spoke not only for the Leader, but for the other members of the party when he stated that the Government had no assurance from that side.

They consulted you.

Not as far as I know. Continuing, he said that to say that the Government had gauged the feelings of members on both sides of the House was merely to say that they had the country behind them, and he (Mr. Duncan) believed that they did have the country behind them.

What about the Transvaal elections?

Oh! those wonderful Transvaal elections! (Laughter.)

Many a man, afterwards very loud voiced in his protestations against the proclamation of Martial Law, was very glad that the Government did proclaim it at the time. Continuing, he said he would go further and say that the action of the Government in departing these men had a great deal to do with stopping the agitation. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, though he approved of certain principles of the Bill.

He also believed that the Government was right in taking measures to protect men against coercion and intimidation. There were clauses in the Bill which would nullify its effect and would promote disorder instead of promoting order. The offence of the Bill culminated in that clause on deportation. In introducing that clause the Government had done something which would go a long way in nullifying the provisions of the Bill. It was all very well for the hon. member for Jeppe to say that it was a death-bed repentance on the part of the Opposition. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), on the second reading, had said that he would oppose that clause. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) took up the attitude of resenting the efforts of any of them to do anything in opposition to the Bill—he wanted a monopoly of that attitude, he wanted to say that he and his friends alone were the protectors of public liberty. The principle of the Bill in his (Mr. Duncan’s) opinion was not one of hostility to Trade Unions, but of hostility to coercion and intimidation. There were a number of clauses in that Bill which unless they were used with the utmost care would do more harm than good. He hoped the Government would not apply the provisions of the Bill in the spirit in which they had acted to some Trade Unions under Martial Law. If they did so, they would bring strife instead of peace to this country. He hoped that some of the clauses of the Bill would pass into disuse and become dead letters in that Act. For those reasons and because power was given the Government to deport, he felt fully justified in voting against the third reading of the Bill.

said the Minister had said that other colonies had legislation of that description, yet those countries were not free from strikes. He did not believe that Bill would stop strikes, and he thought the common law was sufficient to deal with the matters mentioned in the Bill. They had been told that the Bill would do away with the necessity of Martial Law. He thought that was quite wrong. If they wanted to call out the Defence Force they would have to proclaim Martial Law. With regard to deportation, he admitted that he had voted to indemnify the Government, because he had felt that as the men had gone, to bring them back would only lead to further disturbances. Still, he objected to deportation being put on the Statute-book. He objected to a man being punished twice over for the same offence, and he also objected to deportation applying only to those who came from over the water.

said he had voted to indemnify the Government in connection with the deportations. He thought there were a number of men who voted, rightly or wrongly, for the Labour members in the Transvaal who had been glad when Martial Law was proclaimed. He was one of those who, although he had voted to indemnify the Government, did not think that deportation should be provided for political offences. When he spoke on the deportations he had said that he hoped legislation would be passed which would deal with persons so that it would not be necessary to deport them. He had also said that they should bring those nine men back as soon as they had a law under which they could be dealt with. He drew a big distinction between political offences and other offences, such as illicit liquor dealing, etc. The Administration should be in a position to put down with a firm hand such disturbances as took place last year on the Rand. The mere fact of deportation being on the Statute-book seemed to him to be a political error.

said the Opposition had been twitted by the members on the cross-benches for having voted for the second reading of that Bill. Where did they find a single Bill introduced in that House to which there was not some objection? When did the hon. member for Jeppe first decide that he would stand as a Labour candidate for that House, and when did he decide which particular constituency he would fight? Was it after consultations and various little trips to Pretoria? In the early days of Parliament the hon. member always voted with the Government, but now his diatribes were not directed against the Government, but against the Opposition. What was the object—was an election impending? (Laughter.) When history came to be written they would see who had changed, the hon. members on the cross-benches or the Opposition. The reason the present mood of the House was not gentle was because of the unrest of July and January last, when money was frittered away because of that unrest, and consequently the country had to face a deficiency of £300,000. This deficiency had to be made up by an income tax and increased duties on foodstuffs. He would like the public to remember that the increased cost of living had been brought about largely by the action of the hon. members on the cross-benches and their friends. (Cheers.)

said he supposed he would be criticised if he did not reply. The debate had been a very amusing one, but had consisted not of criticism, but of give and take between the two sides on the Opposition side of the House. It was very difficult to reply to a debate of that kind. The question of Martial Law had been dragged in again, and in justice to the leader of the Opposition he wished to say in the most emphatic language that Martial Law was proclaimed; by the Government entirely on its own responsibility and without consulting any member of the Opposition. (Cheers.) The Government at the same time appreciated the patriotic action of the Opposition in supporting it in times of stress and disturbance. As to the deportation, the first bogey raised was that an undue distinction was to be drawn between people born in South Africa and those not born here. When he agreed to delete that provision he said that in his opinion the result would be the same, that it would not be possible for this country to except citizens born here, though, of course, if it would be possible for us to make arrangements for any country to receive them, then they could be deported. But when he gave way on that point, another bogey was raised—that of political offences. But what did they mean by political offences? Suppose the people of Cape Town were dissatisfied with Parliament and blew up the Post Office and Railway Station, was that a political or semi-political offence? The phrase “political offence” was a nice expression. In the old days they started with treason—a man invading a country with an armed force. Now instead of invading a country with an armed force it was war against society from inside society. Was not public violence a political offence? Any invasion of the rights of the public was public violence. Was that a political offence? It might be a political offence. It was argued that Government might deport a man who did not agree with their political views, but an offence could only become so if a man endeavoured to support his views by unconstitutional means. Only then did it become an offence. Take high treason, commonly spoken of as a political offence. Suppose he was dissatisfied with the Government and took a revolver and tried to shoot the King. Was that a political offence? Those members who rightly supported the Government in the action it took last January ought to have stood manfully to their guns and to have said “we are going to support the Government in putting a measure on the Statute Book under which we can deal with these people inside the law and not outside the law.” (Labour cheers.)

If you had taken our advice you would have done.

(continuing) said the hon. member for Uitenhage had stated that deportation was an exploded punishment. It was a question whether the spirit of restlessness which was gaining ground throughout the world was not due to this sickly sentiment. (Laughter.) So far from saying that deportation was an exploded punishment he thought it was a punishment which, if this spirit continued countries would find that they would be forced to take advantage of. He did not want to go into the questions raised in regard to the offences mentioned in chapter 2. Of course, hon. members on the cross-benches were opposed to that. The Bill, so far from being entirely punitive, in certain respects very much softened down the present law under which meetings could take place only by authority of the Government. The fact that the law was not in force was a different question. In the Transvaal, Act No. 6 of 1894 laid down provisions with regard to prohibited meetings, and the Bill before the House was much more lenient in its punishment than the Transvaal law was Allusion had been made to the Peace Preservation Ordinance. Chapter 1 of the Bill was really a weakening of the present law, but it was considered desirable to have a law which would state shortly and as clearly as possible the general principles with regard to riotous gatherings, and he regretted very much that these bogies in connection with deportation had been raised. He thought he could confidently say that the great majority of the people in the Union were prepared to support the Government through thick and thin in preserving law and order, and in putting measures on the Statute-book to enable Government to do so. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that the word “now,” proposed to be omitted, would, therefore, stand part of the motion.

The motion that the Bill be now read a third time was then put and agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved in new paragraph (a), line 20, after “administration” to insert “the revenues of the Civil Service and Railway Servants Pension and Superannuation Funds.” He said he was not quite certain that this was clearly provided for in the amendments which had been moved by the Minister, and it seemed to him that it would be safer to put it in, because they were all agreed that these funds should not be taxed.

said that the legal advisers stated that the clause as it stood covered this.

said that, under the circumstances, he would not press his amendment.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

The new paragraph (a) was then agreed to.

moved, in paragraph(d), line 28, to omit “as regards” and to substitute “in the case of any assurance company such portion of its income derived from investments as is not required for meeting its liabilities and in the case of other societies and companies.” He said that the matter was discussed in committee. The Minister would notice that this was limited to that portion of a company’s income which was required to meet these liabilities. After calling attention to the terms of contract entered into between a company and an assured, the hon. member went on to say that he would take a concrete case. If at the age of 32 years a man was insured to receive £1,000 at death, his expectation of life was 33 years and the premium was £25 per annum, which, multiplied by 33, gave a total payment of £825. For that the company was liable to pay at the death of the assured £1,000. There was thus a difference of £175, which the company had to get from its investments. He thought the Minister would see that that was not a profit which should be taxable. The company had got their working expenses every year, which had to be made out of their profits, but, in addition, they must clear £175 during the lifetime of the policyholder in order to make them solvent. In regard to annuities the case was still stronger. A man at the age of 60 years who purchased an annuity would be paid at the rate of £9 12s. 9d. per cent, on the purchase price paid. His expectation of life was 14½ years, and he would receive for each £100 paid by him £140. In other words, if a man of 60 had taken £1,000 to an insurance company and bought an annuity, they agreed to pay him out £1,400. It was perfectly obvious that, before the man died, the insurance company would be unable to pay out the money that they had to pay, unless they invested this money. He thought in that case they would be taxing, not profits, but the resources of the company, which were required to enable them to meet their liabilities. He thought that the Minister ought to accept the amendment.

intimated that he was unable to accept the amendment.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m.

supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly, said that the money mentioned could not in any sense be called income any more than they would speak about the income of a private individual. It was the accrued fund which enabled the insurance company to pay its way, and if they did not earn sufficient interest they would not be able to pay out what they had contracted to pay out. The essential point, as had been pointed out by the hon. member for Barkly, still remained. He appealed to the Minister to reconsider his position, saying that they had only put forward what was considered to be a reasonable and fair proposition. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of his hon. friend.

said he was sorry the Minister did not appear as though he would accept any amendment of this sort. The view he would urge on the House was that it was a question affecting the stability of the policies which the public held. That was the real point involved. It was a matter of great moment to every person insured in any insurance company that the stability of their policies should not be affected. The system the companies worked on was this: Supposing he were insured for £100. The premiums calculated for the average life would amount to about £75, and the remaining £25 had to be made up by interest on investments. This would go to meet his policy of £100. It must be obvious to all hon. members that the premiums which he had paid would naturally depend on the amount of interest which the company would make. Most companies based their system on 3½ per cent.—that they would get that amount of interest at all times. The premiums were calculated so that the return of 3½ per cent, would make up the £100 of the policy. If they touched that 3½ per cent, on investment they would affect the stability of these policies. The company had based the whole of its system on a certain amount of interest. Now it was proposed to tax that, and, therefore, the stability of the policy might be affected. This was what he proposed to the Minister of Finance. Let him tax all the income derived by the company over and above 3½ per cent., and they would leave the basis on which the policies were founded untouched. The policies would remain secure and stable, and in good times they would derive a fair amount of revenue. It would be sounder in the interests of all concerned that the Minister should not touch the amount required to meet the policy, but would rather limit the taxation to any income derived over and above the 3½ per cent, basis.

said he desired to support the amendment, although he knew it would not help. He felt that the insurance companies had done a great deal of good, as they fostered in the people a spirit of thrift. All the amendment asked was that that part of the interest from investments required to meet obligations in regard to policies should be exempted from the tax. The request was a most reasonable one, and he urged that the Minister should comply with it and show that he was not inexorable. The companies could, not manage without the interest on their investments, as that and the sums received as premiums made up their total income.

said supposing the Government made a company pay upon its investments and at its next valuation it was declared that the valuation was not on a sound basis, where would the Government be? The Government would be the means of depriving those who were entitled to it of a surplus. Was the Minister going to tax the foundations of a society and perhaps put it in the position of not being able to pay its liability? They all knew that the actuarial valuation showed that the Cape Pensions Fund was not sound actuarially. Supposing it had been a private fund, the Minister would have been taking money from an unsound fund. They ought to tax profits, and he thought the Minister ought to tax profits only. He ought to tax only upon the surplus, and on that basis it would be sound. He objected to the clause on the ground of interference with the stability of the companies; they should tax only actual profits, and above all things the last thing they ought to do was to tax thrift.

asked if by “local authorities ” the Minister meant municipalities? If so, why not say so?

said he did not propose to proceed with his amendment standing on the Paper, and he would not move it. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly. He only wished to say that the point which had been raised was a different point from that which had been raised in committee, and he hoped the House would see that they were striking at the stability of all those societies.

said he wished to support the amendment and said he had received a petition from 52 policyholders in his district against the taxation of the thrift of poor widows and such like.

said the amendment did not go quite as far as the one which had been previously moved and which asked for entire exemption. He hoped the Minister would meet the House on the question, and said that policyholders under the clause would be taxed on the very highest scale. Therefore he trusted the Minister would see his way to make this small concession. He was merely asked to exempt a portion of the incomes of the companies. It was only fair.

said he hoped the Minister would at the eleventh hour accept the amendment, because it would be in the interests of the policyholders and of the country as a whole.

put the question that the words “as regards,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill.

said he had before him a very interesting judgment of the House of Lords, which laid it down that mutual insurance companies did not make any profit or gain.

moved, in new paragraph (m), clause 5, after “paragraph,” to insert “(k) or paragraph”; and in line 2, to omit “portion” and to substitute “proportion.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 11,

Is it not in accordance with the rules of the House that if an amendment is not on the Paper at the stage at which it should be, the House may yet give leave for an amendment to be put?

That must be unanimous.

We are now robbed of our right to move amendments by Government using its majority to have the Bill put down for consideration of amendments at a very early date. I move as an unopposed motion that leave be given to put an amendment to delete clause 11.

objected.

There is an objection, so the motion cannot be put.

asked whether the Minister would give an explanation of clause 11.

said that would be cut of order. There were no, amendments in clause 11.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 14, Peduction from taxable amounts,

moved, in sub-section (1), to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (a): “(b) any diminution in the value of the livestock and agricultural produce possessed by the taxpayer.” The mover said this matter had not been discussed by the farming members of the House. The sub-section appeared to be absolutely essential after the Minister’s amendment. There were two methods of assessing a farmer’s income. Under one method they took stock at the end and beginning of the year, and by the other they simply took into consideration the sale of livestock. It was evidently necessary that they should guard themselves against including in their income sales of capital in the form of livestock. If the Minister could assure him that he had legal advice which was sufficient to satisfy him that in no case would the sale of capital be included as income and taxed accordingly, then it would be quite satisfactory. It was not clear to him (Mr. Fremantle) at the present time, and he was sure it was not clear to others. He was afraid that if this amendment were not adopted the result of the amendment adopted on clause 5 might be to bring the farmer into a dangerous position, because it might lead him to go entirely on a question of sales, and the result of sales might be that he was taxed on his capital.

said in clause 4 two alternatives had been provided for, one under which the farmer gave a return of his stock at the beginning and the end of the year. Under that alternative it must be clear whether there was an increase or decrease of stock. In the other the farmer would state the quantities of stock sold. Under this new proposal, however, the hon. member for Uitenhage mixed up the two alternatives. He (the speaker) could not accept the amendment, as he thought the question raised had been adequately dealt with in the Bill.

said that the hon. gentleman had just referred to a point he was going to put to him, a question which he had been discussing with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. If he followed the Minister correctly, he had stated that there was a schedule issued showing the manner in which the incomes of farmers would be collected, that was, they could either have an ordinary balance-sheet or they could take their sales, including produce and livestock, year by year, and pay on those. He did not want the Minister to do anything at the present stage. He had got in his mind cases where a principle of that sort might do serious damage to a farmer, whose income was generally under £1,000 a year. He wanted the Minister to consider this point before the Bill went through another place. Take a farmer whose ordinary income was £400, £500, or £600 a year. Many of these farmers did not keep books. The farmer would elect to pay his income on the tally of his stock year by year. Things went on nicely for a few years, and suddenly the district in which the man was farming was faced with a serious drought. Under conditions of that sort the farmer found that it was impossible to get veld and he had great difficulty in travelling about. The poor unfortunate man, driven to extremes, sold everything he possessed at practically famine prices. Under the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, if he elected to pay on his outgoings every year, he might have disposed of the whole of his cattle and sold his animals at 50 or 75 per cent. less than their real value in an ordinary season, and if there was no provisions to meet a particular case of that sort, it seemed to him that if the sales were over £1,000 he would have to pay income tax upon the returns of that year, though he was a considerable loser. (“No.”) He would like the position to be made perfectly clear from a legal point of view.

said that he agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. If at the beginning of a year a farmer had 2,000 sheep, that was regarded as his capital. Suppose, however, that a severe drought ensued and the farmer was compelled to sell a large part of his stock, would the farmer be taxed on what that stock produced at such sale? The point was not clear to him. In view of the fact that the legal members of the House differed on the question, it was desirable that it should be made quite plain in the law, and under the circumstances he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. He regarded it as one of the fairest methods of taxation, but if there was the smallest chance of an injustice being committed, he thought it should be guarded against.

said that he only rose to deal with a hypothetical case put forward by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and he hoped by doing so he would dispose of the objections of that hon. member and others who had spoken on the subject. Under this law it was provided in the case of agriculturists that they must supply a statement showing what number of cattle and produce was on hand at the beginning and the end of the year. Supposing a farmer disclosed at the beginning of July, 1913, that he had 2,000 sheep of the value of £2,000, and that at the end of June in this year he disclosed that he had 2,800 sheep of the value of £2,800, he would pay no income tax because the increase fell below the value of £1,000. During the next year a drought intervened and he had to sell his stock at £1,400. Surely it was obvious for the following year he would pay no income tax.

said that that was obvious to everyone. But the Minister of Finance said a man Could elect to pay on a different basis, on his sales for the year alone. The point he wished to make was, that supposing the farmer elected to pay on the second basis he might have, owing to unforeseen circumstances, to sell practically the whole of his stock, and though he would lose considerably he would have to pay the income tax.

said that that was the danger of the second option. He considered the statement of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was correct. With regard to the proposal of the hon. member for Uitenhage, that was on the “heads I win, tails you lose,” principle. The hon. member wanted to take into account the losses on stock, but did not want to take into account the gains on the farmer. Was that fair?

Of course, it is fair.

It is absolutely preposterous.

said that the proposal of the hon. member for Uitenhage was unworkable. He suggested that the losses on stock should be deducted from what? The taxable income. If he was not going to take the gains into account what was he going to deduct the losses from?

said when originally clause 4 was in Committee it was not at all clear, and he was grateful to the Minister for the clause proposed yesterday. He thought, however, that if a farmer chose to be taxed under the second alternative, it was essential to have a provision such as laid down in the amendment, because without such a provision the matter worked in a very one-sided manner, and it would be impossible for the farmer to withdraw his losses from the amount on which he was to be taxed. The point was of more importance than some hon. members thought.

said that the more hon. members talked about the matter, the more they seemed to confuse the position. The amendment seemed to mix up the alternatives, as it aimed at applying the same principle to both alternatives. In the first place neither alternative applied to incomes of less than £1,000. Under the first alternative a farmer had to make a return as to his possession in stock at the beginning and at the end of the year, and on the difference with certain provisions he was taxed. The second alternative, however., provided for an altogether different state of affairs. He (the speaker) was a farmer who would fall under that provision which required an account of the sales effected during the year. He held the first alternative would prove most to the advantage of the farmer, and people who took the second alternative would find that they would soon like to come under the other system. This especially referred to cattle farmers. Of course, the position in regard to grain farmers and such people was an altogether different one. The “sale” alternative, he held, would not prove to the benefit of cattle farmers. For the grain farmer also the first system was the better of the two.

said he would be very glad if the Prime Minister would tell him what part of the world he had found had adopted that system. In every part of the world where income tax was collected from farmers it was collected from the value of their land and it was found uncommonly difficult to get it. There were well-nigh insuperable difficulties about it whatever course they adopted. The Prime Minister had advised the farmers to take the questions of the rise and fall of their stock. A lot of difficulties would crop up about that through droughts, lowering in value of the stock, sickness, etc.—they would have an enormous amount of difficulty in collecting all those things.

They would be taken into account.

said he knew they would be taken into account, but they had to get it right in the account and there would be great difficulties. He preferred the other system of taxing the incomes. Under the old Cape Act between 1904 and 1908 they never heard of those difficulties. The whole position could be met under section 48, which enabled the Government to frame regulations generally, giving effect to the objects and purposes of that Act. It enabled the Commissioner of Taxes to get over those difficulties, and he thought they were beating the air in all that discussion of amendments.

said the first alternative was a dangerous one, especially if in days of drought a farmer might be compelled to sell a large percentage of his cattle. He would advise every cattle farmer to take the Second alternative. The hon. member for Uitenhage seemed to miss the point altogether. He trusted the Mirrister would not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria West.

moved: In sub-section (1), line 11, on page 20, to omit “prescribed,” and in the same line, after “period” to insert “prescribed by sub-section (5) ”; and in sub-section (2), line 14, on page 20, to omit all the words from “Any court” to the end of the subsection and to substitute: “A court (hereinafter referred to as the court) so constituted shall consist of three persons, one of whom shall be a barrister and another an accountant, each of not less than ten years’ standing, designated in the Proclamation.” The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 42, Circumstances under which refund can be made of amounts paid in excess to Commissioner.

moved: In sub-section (2), to add at the end of the sub-section: “Provided that it shall be lawful for any person domiciled in the Union at any time within six months of the payment of the tax to claim a refund of such portion of the tax paid by any company in respect of shares held by him at the time of the passing of this Act if the total income of such person is below the exempted amount of one thousand pounds, and such portion of the tax shall be forthwith refunded by the Commissioner, such refund not to be payable to any person becoming possessed of shares in any company after the passing of this Act.” The mover said the Minister had stated that they could not pass a Bill without inflicting hardships, but the existence of hardships under former Acts was no reason why they should be perpetuated in new Acts. (Hear, hear.) His amendment would exempt the present holder of shares, but it would not apply to shares purchased after the passing of the Bill. Of course, the holder would still be penalised to a certain extent, for when the shares were sold they would fetch a lower price in consequence of the tax. Relief should be given to those unfortunate persons with small incomes derived from shares.

said the hon. member for Barkly was on the right track, but he did not go far enough. He (Mr. Nathan) did not see on what principle they should exclude only people who were domiciled in the Union, or shares which were at present held. The effect would, be to discourage people investing in shares. He moved to amend the amendment by the deletion of the words “domiciled in the Union” and “at the time of passing of this Act” and by the omission of all words after “Commissioner.” It seemed to him (Mr. Nathan) that most of the hon. members thought only of themselves and their friends, whereas their first duty should be to look after those who did not look after themselves.

The amendments of Mr. Nathan and Dr. Watkins were negatived.

The remaining amendments made in Committee were agreed to.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

said he hoped that, before the third reading was taken in another place, the Minister would go into the whole question which had been raised this afternoon, because the Prime Minister had told the farmers, and he (Sir T. W. Smartt) thought very wisely, that he would advise them under no circumstances to adopt the first section of clause 4 of the Bill dealing with the taxation of farmers incomes.

moved as an amendment to delete “now” and insert at the end of the motion “this day six months.” He complained that the courtesy which had been shown on that side of the House towards the Government in facilitating the passage of their Bills had met with very unfair treatment, as witness the attitude which had been adopted this afternoon by hon. members opposite towards the proposal of the hon. member for Newlands to delete clause 3, which he desired to bring forward as an unopposed motion. There were three grounds on which he (Mr. Nathan) moved that this Bill be read a third time this day six months. In the first place, they as a party had maintained throughout that there was no necessity for further taxation. He contended that they had proved that to the hilt. His second ground was that the Government had adopted as a principle the taxing of revenues, apart from premiums, which were derived by insurance companies. He maintained that that was a wrong principle, and that it constituted a tax on thrift. The third ground was that the basis of taxation laid down in clause 11 was grossly unjust. The Government proposed to free all people whose incomes were less than £1,000. If they had two bachelors, each with an income of £1,000 a year, these men would be exempted, but if they had a man and wife, who were married by ante-nuptial contract, and whose combined incomes exceeded £1,000 a year, they had to pay income tax.

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

called for a division, but shortly afterwards withdrew his call.

The amendment was therefore negatived.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

read a message from the Senate transmitting the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Registration Laws Amendment Bill, as passed by the Senate.

By direction of Mr. SPEAKER, The Bill was read a first time and set down for second reading on Monday next.

moved that the consideration of the clauses stand over until the schedules had been considered.

The motion was agreed to.

On the first schedule, Tariff of Customs duties,

moved in class 1, special rates, to delete item 22, tax on films for bioscopes and cinematographs, 5s. per 100 feet. He said he did not propose to repeat the arguments which he brought forward at a previous stage in support of the deletion of this tax. It was a special tax on one form of amusement, and ah amusement that was much availed of by the poor people of the country. Amusements were already taxed under an Ordinance of the Cape Province, and he thought this additional tax ought not to be imposed.

moved to delete items 6, 7, 11, 18, 19, 20, and 21. He said that his object was to strike out these taxes on articles which were used for food. He did not propose to go over the arguments he had previously advanced, but he wanted to make this last appeal to the Minister to realise what he was doing or endeavour to do so. He was now seeking to increase taxation upon people who were utterly unable to afford it. At the same time he saw from the Order Paper that it was very probable that the Minister proposed to drop the land taxation scheme. He wished to protest in the strongest possible manner against raising, revenue or preventing the importation of food-stuffs which were usually used by the very poorest portion of the community. There were’ certain articles which were used as substitutes for butter and cheese. He was not in favour of the poorer people of the community using these substitutes; but, in view of the fact that a very large proportion of the people had got to use these things by reason of the fact that, on account of the small return they received for their labour, they could not obtain anything else, he protested strongly against these commodities being subjected to additional taxation at the present time.

It was decided to take the schedule in: classes.

moved, as a further amendment, the deletion of items 28, 31, 32, and 37.

appealed to the Minister to re-consider item 50, minerals, aerated and other waters. He believed that the existing tax was 25 per cent., and the Minister had a telegram from Johannesburg dealing with this subject.

The hon. member paused in order to gain the attention of the Minister.

Oh! go on.

The hon. member must proceed.

But he won’t hear me. Continuing, Mr. Nathan said the Minister had sent a reply to the telegram to the effect that the committee had passed the item, and he could not promise re-consideration. He would move to omit item. No. 50, and he asked the Minister to meet him on this point.

hoped that the Minister would give his attention to the amendments which had been proposed by the hon. member for Springs. He pointed out that it had been clearly shown that diseases among poor people in this country were entirely due to a lack of good food. The foods that were most needed were the most heavily taxed. He alluded to beef fat, skimmed milk, and other things, and said he did not think it was wise for the Minister to tax what he might call the fundamental foods of the people. Their bread up-country was already twice the price it ought to be, and yet there was a further heavy tax under this schedule. It was essential to the vitality of the people that they should get good food.

put, the question: That items Nos. 6, 7, 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21, proposed to be omitted, stand part of Class 1,

moved to add the words “not being films forming part of any educational programme approved of by the Minister of Education.”

The amendment was negatived.

said that with regard to sugar, he hoped that as soon as the Mozambique Treaty came to an end they would have some change in the relations with that Province with regard to sugar. He had said that they would soon have a sugar trust in this country, and he now found that they already had that trust.

The hon. member proceeded to quote from a circular regarding a trust at Durban to show that the merchants were being dictated to as to whom they should sell the sugar to and at what price they should sell it. If that did not demonstrate that there was a trust, he did not know what did. There were 16 firms mentioned to whom the trust would supply sugar in Cape Town. That did not include the names of all the firms who sold sugar, though it did mention the leading firms. They selected some firms and not others in order to keep down competition. That showed how strong the trust really was Another point with regard to that trust was that it naturally kept the price just below the price at which they could land Mauritius sugar. Consumers of sugar had been taxed in this country for the benefit of the growers in Natal and Mozambique Province. There was not the slightest doubt that the time would arrive when Natal would foe producing more sugar than this country could consume. They would have to commence dumping sugar then, and when they sent it oversea they would have to sell it at the world’s market price.

Sir T. M. CULLINAN (Pretoria District, North) said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had gone on long enough to prove the fallacy of his own argument. He said the time would come when the world’s market price was going to rule the price of Natal sugar.

pointed out that he said for export.

Sir T. M. CULLINAN said that was what they were aiming at in this country; the hon. member had come to the conclusion that the Natal grower would eventually have to take the world’s market price. The only, real argument he used was that those people were going to combine. Well, they had to fight against combines in this country, and if the combines did the majority out of their legitimate rights, that House had the right to legislate against such combines. The hon. member said that £350,000 was lost to this country, but if he went down to Natal he would see how the face of Natal had been changed by the sugar growers. If the time was coming when the sugar growers would supply this country with sugar at the world’s market price they must hail that with open arms and be satisfied. There was another point he would like to raise, from the point of view of the inland man. Cape Town and the coast towns were quite free of all the extra duty on sugar which they inland had to pay, and they did not get any benefit from preferential rates. Natal sugar came up from Natal and the high rate was charged to the consumer in Johannesburg. He would like his hon. friend to go into the matter now and put on the duty at the coast, so that the coast people would pay their share. Why should they in the interior have to pay ? He hoped it was possible to re-open the question.

said he did not rise to take part in that debate, because much had been said by both hon. members to give the House food for thought for many a day. (Laughter.) He moved a small amendment to add a comma.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, looked forward to the time when they would have Natal sugar at the world’s market price. But there was £3 10s. per ton Customs duty and £2 per ton preferential railway rates. The hon. member asked why they should not pay all that duty at the coast; that they should let the coast people pay their share instead of the population in the interior being called upon to pay the additional burden of railage. He would like to remind the hon. member for Pretoria, North, that he could buy sugar in Johannesburg or Pretoria just as cheap as in Natal, because they took advantage of the preferential rate to keep up the price in Natal. A few years ago they could not get sugar which was grown at their very doors; sugar which they protected by a £3 10s.

Customs duty. They collared the Transvaal market, and they in Natal had to buy Australian sugar. The hon. member for Pretoria, North, was entirely astray when he dealt with the protection of the sugar industry in Natal. If Natal had never grown any sugar at all they would have had cheaper sugar and 140,000 fewer Indians in the Province. That was the price they had to pay. Natal sugar would never stand on its own feet while it was bolstered up as it was to-day.

The amendment of the hon. member for Yon Brandis was negatived.

Class 1, special rates, was agreed to.

On class 2, Mixed rates,

moved an amendment in item 53, “Printed matter”, paragraph 5, after “sine die”, to insert “and printed paper bags of every description”; and in paragraph 10, after “embossed”, to omit “including printed paper bags of every description”.

The amendments were carried.

Class 2 as amended was agreed to.

On class 3, 25 per cent, ad valorem.

moved the deletion of the following from item 55: “(a) Fruit juices, cordials, and syrups, not elsewhere enumerated; (b) all other kinds not exceeding 3 per cent, of proof spirit,” and the substitution of “all kinds not elsewhere enumerated, except fruit juices, cordials, and syrups, and not exceeding 3 per cent, of proof spirit.” The mover said the Government’s proposal seemed to be an unnecessary tax on temperance.

The amendment was negatived.

moved the deletion of item 60, bespoke clothing. He said it was not only the wealthy classes who got their clothes from England, and quoted from a letter in the “Cape Times ” to show that ladies could import their dresses at a lower price than they could have them made in South Africa.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end of item 64, “but excluding all surgical instruments.”

suggested that it would simplify matters if surgical instruments were placed in the free list.

The amendment was thereupon withdrawn

Class 3 was agreed to.

On class 4, Three per cent, ad valorem,

moved to add “radium” to item 134.

suggested that radium should be inserted in the free list.

acquiesced, and the amendment was withdrawn

Class 4 was agreed to.

On class 5, Free list,

moved, after item No. 183, to insert the following new item, viz.: “183a Radium”; and to add at the end of item No. 157, the following “or public libraries and similar institutions”.

The amendments of Mr. Merriman were agreed to.

moved after item 173 to insert “lacquer for tins used for preserving purposes.”

The amendment was negatived.

said he wished to draw attention to a matter in relation to item 179. Under the present regulations paintings were allowed to come in free. What happened was that people who wanted to import frames put cheap pictures into them for the purpose of getting the frames in free. That was unfair to manufacturers of frames here. It was an evasion of the duty. He did not know that they need put anything into this Bill, but he thought the Minister might give instructions so that frames containing pictures were subjected to duty.

said he would make a note of the matter.

said that he brought this matter to the notice of the head of the Customs Department last year, and was assured that duty was levied on these cheap pictures and frames which were brought into the country, and that there was no evasion of the duty.

said that he had had a communication with the chief of the Department and was informed that last year an amount of £4,000 was collected on frames in which there were these cheap pictures.

moved at the end of item 188 to insert “surgical instruments and appliances.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Class 5, as amended, was agreed to.

Class 6, ad valorem rate 15 per cent., was agreed to.

The second schedule was agreed to.

On clause 3, Rebate in respect of goods manufactured, etc., in the United Kingdom.

moved to delete the first proviso, viz., “the rebate shall only be allowed at the time of the payment of the duty upon the goods.” He said that the Minister had increased the power of officials, he considered, to a very large extent. This proviso was a great departure from the system hitherto in vogue. The proper way to obtain this rebate was to produce the certificate of origin with the invoice and then pay the duty. It sometimes happened, owing to some oversight on the other side, that the certificate of origin did not come along by the same mail that brought the invoice, but came by the following mail. Under this proviso they would either have to leave the goods at the docks and pay warehouse rent, etc., or pay the full duty of 15 per cent, and get no refund. He hoped his hon. friend would not take away any rights they had enjoyed in the past.

in supporting the amendment, said it often happened that owing to the remissness of a clerk the certificate of origin did not come to hand in time.

said he could bear out the statement made by the hon. member opposite. It often happened that documents were delayed or for some reason or other were not forthcoming. He thought it would be very unfair indeed if no rebate were allowed in such a case.

said he thought the proviso was quite reasonable. Two sets of documents were produced, the invoice on which the duty was chargeable and the certificate of origin. Unless these two documents were produced at the same time, how were they going to identify the goods? They might use the certificate of origin afterwards in respect of other goods.

said that that was impossible. There were several methods by which the two documents could be identified and connected with each other. He had never heard of any attempt at fraud. He never even heard a suggestion that these certificates of origin were used for more than one invoice.

said that in the past the custom had been, in the event of the certificate of origin not being attached to the original invoice, for the authorities to charge 15 per cent, and make a refund on the production later on of the missing certificate of origin. He did not think there was the slightest fear of any misuse being made of these certificates.

said that in the circumstances he would accept the amendment.

said it was clear to him that the preferential tariff was unjust to this country. The amount of about £600,000 came out of the pockets of the South African consumer. To this he objected. They had now been engaged for more than a month at providing revenue for the country, while iF the preferential tariff had been abolished: there would have been no necessity to raise fresh taxation. Taxes were imposed on people now who could ill-afford to pay them, while if the preferential tariff was abolished the taxpayers as a whole would benefit. He, therefore, moved the deletion of clause 5.

said he did not think it was competent for them to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member who had just spoken. It would mean increasing taxation. Undoubtedly they paid out a great lot. The hon. member who had been most emphatic in his condemnation of the thing was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton). That rebate had been sprung upon them in the most illegitimate way. It was introduced by a back-door and they were told to take it or leave it. He saw, for example, there was a tax on corks and bungs of 3 per cent. Those things were a necessity in this country, and were used in the manufacture of their products, yet they were taxed. Take box wood, they could only get it from Sweden, but because it came from a foreign country they taxed it. That was a most unjust and unfair thing.

said he did not agree with the right hon. member for Victoria West. If the preferential tariff was abolished revenue would be increased and further taxation would be unnecessary. Clause 3 was before the House, and he objected to clause 3. He intended to vote against it. Discussion on the question had clearly proved that the tariff was created at a time when the whole country was opposed to it. The preferential tariff had been forced on the country. He held that the British Empire had no benefit at all from the tariff—it was a tax on the people of South Africa.

Mr. dagger’s amendment to omit the first proviso was agreed to.

moved: “In paragraph (iii), line 35, to omit “decision of the Commissioner shall be final,” and to substitute “matter shall be referred to three arbitrators, one of whom shall be appointed by the Commissioner, one by the Chamber of Commerce of the place where the question arose, and one by these two jointly.”

said he was prepared to allow the word “Commissioner ” to be deleted and to insert “Minister of Finance ” instead.

Col. C. P. CREWE (East London) moved to delete the word “Commissioner” and insert “Minister in whom the control of the Customs Department is vested.”

said he did not see much difference between the terms “Commissioner of Customs ” and “Minister in charge of the Department.”

accepted Col. Crewe’s amendment.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was withdrawn.

Col. Crewe’s amendment was agreed to.

said he again wished to appeal to the Minister to abolish the preferential tariff. This was a matter which he wished to emphasise his objections to.

said it should be made plain that there was a certain section in the House, and a very large section in the country, which objected to the continuation of the preferential system. This was the first occasion on which a Customs Tariff containing this system had been put before the House, and a strong protest ought to be made. He was very sorry that a Ministry supported by hon. members on the Government side should have agreed to a proposal of this kind, for it was going back—at any rate as far as the Cape was concerned—on the declarations of the whole party of the Government side of the House. The question of fraud in regard to this matter had been called attention to in the official reports of the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Customs in England. The preference clearly gave an opening to fraud of a serious kind, went on Mr. Fremantle. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had argued that the whole of this preferential tariff was simply a benefit to the consumer and nobody else. But it was very difficult to say exactly what the incidence was.

You told us it would be a gift to the British manufacturers of £600,000.

I said that was lost to the Treasury, but I was not aware what proportion went to the manufacturer and to the consumer. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said he was told that the moment preference was put On the price of doors from Canada went up, and the manufacturers of galvanised iron in the U.S.A. and Canada made arrangements to raise the price and pool the preference. The general opinion among business people was that much, of the benefit did not reach the consumer. The Cape members of the Ministry were clearly opposed to preference. The House, however, had not heard from the Ministers of Education, Railways and Harbours, and Agriculture on this subject. Were they prepared to recant in the same way that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had done? All they did was silently to follow the lead given to them by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Fordsburg had stated that the Cape had accepted preference in order to enter the Customs Union. The Cape members on the Government side of the Union Parliament did their utmost to resist the preferential tariff when it came before the Cape Parliament.

On what grounds?

That it was not in the interests of South Africa or of the British Empire. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said that when the preferential principle come before the Cape Parliament the present Minister of Education moved that negotiations be reopened with a view to the omission of preference. That was defeated, but another amendment was put forward that the Customs Convention should be accepted but that the question of preference should be reopened. The amendment was defeated on the casting vote of Mr. Speaker, and it was defeated in the Legislative Council on the casting vote of the President. In the Cape Parliament the whole of the Cape members who sat on the Government side of this House did their utmost—led by the hon. member for Victoria West—to get rid of preference. They were told that they must accept preference to show their goodwill to England, but in the opinion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours it was calculated to do infinite harm to England. The Minister of Railways and Harbours, speaking on the subject in the Cape Parliament, said “he was convinced that from a purely fiscal point of view this preferential tariff was a mistake.” The result was that they found the Minister’s place empty this afternoon. Continuing, the Minister of Railways and Harbours said “it was an attempt to get support for the new Imperialistic doctrine—the new policy of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Chamberlain). The principle was bad, and everything at the root of it was bad. He objected to the principle on the broad ground that it cut at the great principle of autonomy.” Yet, commented Mr. Fremantle, the Minister of Railways now silently gave his consent to the proposal. The Minister’s proposition was quite different from that of the Leader of the Opposition, who had always been in favour of preference. At any rate the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) had been consistent. But the Ministers who said it was bad, pernicious and dangerous tried to force it on the House. He (Mr. Fremantle) was particularly anxious with regard to this matter, because of a remark which had fallen from the Prime Minister, who said, “Let us hold on a little longer, and then we will get reciprocity.”

He never said that.

He said, at any rate, “Let us hold on to this principle, because we shall get eventually reciprocity, and that is our object.”

No.

Well, then my memory entirely fails me. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said then the Prime Minister had been grossly misrepresented in the British Press, and his admirers on the “London Times” set up the hon. member for Victoria West and himself as foils against the Prime Minister, because the latter was so loyal, Immediately the Prime Minister had made this statement his admirers ran out of the House and sent cablegrams to England, saying that the Prime Minister was loyal. The point in the Prime Minister’s speech was that he was in favour of Imperial reciprocity in regard to preferential tariff. He (Mr. Fremantle) heard no denial of this, so he supposed that his quotation was right. The Prime Minister was attempting to commit the country to the principle of Imperial reciprocity. The Prime Minister believed this to be to the advantage of the Empire, but he (Mr. Fremantle) believed it was not The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had a long record of consistency in that matter, but he was in favour of one-sided preference, always in favour of our giving preference to England, but not in favour of England giving preference to this country. When he was in England in 1906 the hon. member spoke most emphatically, with that force of vivacity all his own, as to the reason why people in this country were in favour of preferential tariffs, saying: “For one trembles to think of what would be the result of all the friction which inevitably must in a few years result from the adoption of a system of preferential tariffs. Such a system I firmly believe would prove the death-blow of the Empire in the long run.” Yet, said Mr. Fremantle, the hon. member stood up in that House the other day and said they should show their love for the Empire by adopting that system; he wanted them to show their love for the Empire by blowing its brains out. But his hon. friend had not followed the Prime Minister so far as reciprocity was concerned.

Hon. members on the Government side of the House only supported preferential tariffs because they hoped to get reciprocity, but that, in the words of his hon. friend, meant the death-blow of the Empire. He (the speaker) took his stand along with the hon. member because he knew that one-sided preference was an impossibility, and, looking at the matter either from an Imperial point of view or from the point of view of the interest of the people of South Africa, he was opposed to the policy then before the House. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were going to get them further into the mesh; they said we could not get out of it until there was an Imperial Conference, but they must remember that we were never asked to adopt this preferential tariff by an Imperial Conference. That was a most dangerous thing to lay down, most contrary to the traditions and interests of the British Empire and to the people of South Africa. If they wished to benefit Great Britain by this tariff let them lower their duties on goods which Great Britain was particularly fitted to produce, and then give an open field to all. He was brought up to look upon that policy of preferential treatment as one which had been accepted once and for all as a policy calculated to do a great deal of harm to all concerned. Hon. members did not realise the danger involved in following the policy of the Prime Minister in that matter; and he did not think that the Prime Minister himself was fully aware of the danger which lay in the course he had taken. A policy of that kind was, as the hon. member had said, calculated to deal a death-blow to the British Empire, and, above all, because it was contrary to the interests of South Africa they should have nothing to do with it. In the interests of all concerned it should be abolished at the earliest possible date.

Clause 3, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 5, Rebates in respect of certain goods,

did not see why soap to be used for wool washing purposes should have special consideration, and moved to omit paragraph (c) “soap or other like substances for use in connection with the industry of woolwashing.”

took exception to paragraph (a), “Wines and spirits for the use of the Governor-General,” and said as they were prepared to tax the food of the people he would like to know why they should allow the luxuries of the Governor-General to come into the country free. If the locally produced wines and spirits were not good enough for the Governor-General they should not let him have the other stuff free. He accordingly moved to omit paragraph (a).

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when business was suspended he was about to ask the Minister if he could give them some information as to why sub-section (a) should be in the Bill. This was a most extraordinary provision, and one that involved an important principle. He would like the Minister to explain why the Governor-General’s wines and spirits should be imported into the country free.

was about to put the amendment, when

again rose and asked if the Minister had no explanation to offer with regard to this matter?

said he did not suppose they would get an explanation from the Minister, but he supposed this concession was given on the principle of “to him that hath shall be given.”

said that only this afternoon in the schedule to this Bill they had passed taxation of the food of the people, which he understood brought into the Treasury considerably over £2,000,000. He asked members to try and realise that at the same time they were proposing to exempt the wines and spirits of the Governor-General from Customs duties they had on the railways 10,000 men who received less than 5s. a day.

put the question that sub-section (a) proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

moved: In line 52, before “port ” to insert “first ”.

This amendment was withdrawn.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 9, Commissioner to determine values in cases of special difficulty.

Col. C. P. CREWE (East London) moved to insert in line 48 after “provided” the words “and subject always to the right of appeal to the Minister.”

said the safest plan would be to do as before in these matters.

said this was a different case to that provided for in the existing Act. It would be better to leave the decision to some well-informed individual rather than to have arbitration, which was very cumbersome and expensive, almost as expensive as going to the Court.

The amendment was carried.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 11, Agreements with Governments of other South African Territories.

moved in line 55 after the word “Africa“ to insert “being a portion of the British Dominions or under the protection of the Crown.” The mover said that seeing we had accepted the principle of reciprocal trade with the Empire the Government should not be in a position to make a Free Trade Treaty with a foreign state. That might lead to great complications.

hoped the mover would not press the amendment. We had foreign territory on our borders, and if we could enter into a Free Trade agreement with German South-West Africa it would be a splendid thing and afford a fine market for our products. He would like to know what was being done in regard to Rhodesia.

was understood to say that the new tariff would give no difficulty with regard to Rhodesia, but there were other questions which, however, he would not enter into at that time. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Newlands when the Government of the Union entered into a convention with one of those areas the matter might be brought before the House. He urged the hon. member to slightly alter his amendment.

accepted the suggestion of the hon. Minister, and moved: In line 55, after “South Africa ”, to insert “being a portion of the British Dominions or under the protection of the Crown ”.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended passed.

The Bill was reported as amended, and consideration of amendments set down for to-morrow.

on rising to move the second reading of the Hartebeestpoort Irrigation Scheme (Crocodile River) Bill, was greeted with Ministerial cheers. He said he took that little demonstration as showing the enthusiasm and the good sense which hon. members had in the view which they took of the practical side of irrigation. Irrigation was one of the factors which was going to develop the Union. They had been talking a great deal in the House of important problems, such as bring back the poor whites to the land, and he thought the object of that Bill was one of the factors which was going to help to solve that difficult problem. (Hear, hear.) It was not necessary for him to go into the benefits which might accrue from irrigation. Hon. members would find that minutely outlined in his scheme by the Director of Irrigation, which was before the House in the Blue-book on the 11th May last. The Hartebeestpoort scheme was not quite a new one. The place itself had been for a long time regarded as one of the ideal places for constructing a dam for the purpose of conserving surplus water. The hon. Minister went into the early history of the scheme, and, proceeding, said that finally it was found that it was quite a feasible scheme and that all the surplus water could be stored in a reservoir in that poort. The reservoir would be built up 160 feet from the bed of the river; taking in the foundation the height above the lowest foundation would be 199 feet. The approximate length of the dam at the top would be 450 feet, and the full storage capacity would be 5,100 cubic feet, of which 4,500 cubic feet would be available for irrigation. The spillway which was going to be taken out would be 250 feet long and take 25 feet of water before the water commenced to flow over the top of the dam. The area which could be irrigated from the storage water would be about 15,000 morgen. The gross area to be supplied was about 70,000 morgen. Of course the private owners of that land would be exempted, provided that any irrigation works had been in existence before December 1, 1913. However, in case these owners would like to surrender their rights, they might do so. About 1,000 morgen would thus be exempted, and they would only pay half rates.

It will cost you more.

said that it would be paid off in 60 years. It might be asked, why not undertake that scheme as a co-operative one? There were several reasons for not doing so. In the first place, co-operation in the Transvaal was still in its infancy, but the main consideration, and he thought that every member of that House would admit that that was a deciding factor in making it a State undertaking, was that the Government wished that to be a closer settlement scheme. (Hear, hear.) If they had to work on the basis of a co-operative scheme they got into the difficulty that a large area of land was held by people living together. The Government had got to protect certain parts of that land, and besides that, a large area of land that would be commanded by that scheme was held by the natives, and it would be unwise to have in a settlement such as the Government had in view natives mixed with the whites—(hear, hear)—and he thought on those grounds that the Government had taken the best course to make it a State undertaking. The locality below was very much favoured. They had good soil and a splendid climate, and there was no doubt that with the railway passing very close, it was one of the best schemes for closer settlement that they could have. It had been originally proposed that the Government should expropriate half of the land and half of the grazing veld at fixed prices to be governed by Parliament.

said he had no intention of throwing cold water on the enthusiasm of his hon. friend who had moved the second reading of the Bill in such glowing language. When he (Sir Thomas) approached anything in connection with irrigation schemes he never allowed party considerations to weigh with him, (cheers) because he believed that anything in the direction of improving the resources of the country and increasing its production should be approached by every hon. member irrespective of party considerations and with the one idea of doing all we could to develop the resources of the country. But when the House was asked to vote something in the vicinity of three-quarters of a million of money it should be given the fullest information; and he entirely disagreed with the Minister when the latter stated that all the details had been minutely described in the information placed at the disposal of members. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir Thomas) was not speaking for the purpose of condemning the scheme. It was possible that Hartebeestpoort might be an ideal place for the construction of irrigation works, but he maintained that in the interests of irrigation and in the interests of the settlers, the House was not justified in launching out on a project of this sort without every detail of the scheme being examined by a Select Committee, before which the Director of irrigation should be questioned on the advisability or otherwise of this proposal. (Hear, hear.) He entirely agreed that it was the duty of Parliament to do something in connection with land settlement for the poor whites, but when they were going to put these people on the land they must be put on the best possible land and at the cheapest possible rate per acre. Speaking as one who had given a consider able amount of attention to the cost peracre of bringing land under water, he knew from experience that even the most carefully prepared estimates sometimes met with difficulties, and instead of saving on these estimates, as the Minister expected, the House must be prepared for a certain amount of contingencies on the side of plus arid not on the side of minus. (Hear, hear.)

The Minister had said that the scheme was extremely cheap, but there would be a, capital account of £450,000, and the total cost would work out at £56 an acre. That was a large sum for land in an area where there was a large rainfall. It was a semihumid country. They might have a rainfall of 25 to 30 inches, and he maintained that his hon. friend was entirely incorrect when he compared a project of that character, with a heavy rainfall, with other land, which comprised some of the most fruitful land on the face of the earth, in a country where there was no frost and the rainfall something less than 10 inches. The hon. Minister was incorrect when he said they should compare the cost of that reservoir with the cost of the Bongola reservoir. Nobody would have spent the money which the Bongola reservoir cost and expect to make a commercial success; but they were fully justified in connection with providing a water supply for an important town like Queen’s Town, and the superabundance was sold for irrigation when the town did not require it; but the municipality would never have embarked upon that scheme solely for the purposes of irrigation. It was the same with regard to the reservoir at Calitzdorp. The blue book which had been laid before the House made reference to another proposal under which irrigation work would be carried out by private enterprise, the State lending money in order that practical men should carry out the work. They should say to those people that for a proportion of the capital lent to them they should transfer a portion of the land, on which could be placed these poor white settlers. The hon. member pointed to the Robertson scheme, where it was in the hands of practical men. They lent to those people £438,000 for the irrigation of 17,500 morgen. But in the proposal before the House the hon. Minister asked for something in the vicinity of £700,000 to work 15,000 morgen, which was not nearly so good.

They must be very careful in that direction; before they embarked on large projects of that character they should have the fullest and most detailed information before them, and they should have the experience of other works which had been made great commercial successes. There was one great fault in one clause. They proposed to levy an irrigation rate of £2 per morgen for water, and in 50 years it was considered that it would be 30s. per morgen, but they should take into account the experience in Australia. If there was one thing more than another which had put a damper on irrigation in Victoria it was because of things of that character. There was no binding obligation for one to have the water if he did not care to do so. If there was a good rainfall he might not want it. Boards had no guarantee of what their income was, and the result was a financial collapse in the long run. He would point out that there was no provision in the Bill for overcoming that under existing conditions. The clause said that a man must decide within six months after the finish of the work whether he was going to take the water or not Unless they decided that they would take the water there was no justification for carrying out this scheme. Even if everybody took the water and the scheme was a success the return would only be 4.27 per cent., and that without redemption. That would have to supply all interest on the capital cost plus redemption for 50 years. Those irrigation schemes took a long time to develop. In their development, no matter how soon they might be put in construction, it was not all beer and skittles. There were periods of great disappointments and there were periods of mishap in the construction of such works.

All these things had to be taken into consideration if they were not going to embark on wild cat schemes. He believed in the small schemes of that country in which farmers were themselves personally interested, and in which they staked their own capital. In regard to the Nuy Canal, they saw the character of the work which the farmers were putting in there, and there was no doubt that no scheme could be carried out as cheaply as those schemes could be carried out in which the farmers were personally interested, as his hon. friend the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) would know. Let them first help the farmers who were prepared to stake their all in the undertakings, but let them not without the fullest information come to that House and ask for a large amount of money before they had the fullest investigation, because if in the end they found that a scheme was not a financial success they were going to put a damper on hundreds of other schemes. (Hear, hear.) They knew how irrigation had suffered in the past from works which were ill considered, and members of the old Cape Parliament knew very well how they had been nearly rushed into a scheme in the Cape Colony at The bus. It was because he felt deeply on that question and because he felt that they could make irrigation a success that he said to the Government: let them not embark on a scheme costing hundreds of thousands of pounds without the fullest investigation and information, and let them see that the schemes were carried out in the most suitable portions of the country, and let them not ask the House to vote larger sums of money without having the fullest information before them. At the end of the session they had not got the information, and if his hon. friend had brought in the Robertson-Ashton Canal scheme they had reams of information about it, but to ask for a new scheme of that sort without giving them an opportunity of investigating it in Select Committee and without knowing the whole facts of the case, was not fair to the House and not fair to the country.

said he wished to congratulate the Minister of Lands on his lucid explanation, and after that he was all the more disappointed at the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, who always claimed to be a promoter of laud settlement and irrigation. The object of the Bill was to promote irrigation works in the country. They had at the head of affairs in the Irrigation Department a man who was extremely careful, and when he recommended a scheme they could say that the scheme was a good one. He had strongly recommended the present scheme. The Minister gave the House his assurance on that point. If there was any scheme which could be carried out successfully it was that one. They were faced with a position in South Africa under which certain farmers were gradually sinking, gradually they saw farmers leaving the land and drifting to the towns. This was a state of affairs which had to be checked, and Parliament could not remain blind to the conditions prevailing, when the Government received the reports that this was a suitable place for an irrigation scheme. The Administrator had been instructed to secure options, which he had done with excellent results. If this Bill was first of all referred to a Select Committee there would again be delay which in the end would have disastrous effects, so that it would become impracticable to carry out the scheme this year, and the price of the ground would rise until it became prohibitive. The ground which would be irrigated was excellent ground. In the olden days the part of the country involved was the granary of the whole of the Transvaal. No fertilizer was required, although it produced 50 bags per morgen year after year. Nowadays, however, farmers went in more for vegetable growing. Farmers in the vicinity had advised him that they got £100 per year per morgen from the irrigated land and they would not sell under £200 per morgen. To refer the matter to a Select Committee would only render the whole scheme impracticable. There was no intention of selling the ground again at £30. If the scheme could be carried to a successful issue it was the Government’s desire to use the ground for settlement purposes. (Hear, hear.) The Leader of the Opposition had suggested that they should lend money to the farmers and then get a part of the land for colonisation. But would the farmers at Calitzdorp give land on those terms? No, they would refuse the money. He also asked that the neighbouring land-owners should within six months say whether or not they would take the water. That was quite impracticable.

interpolated a remark that if they had 8,000 morgen out of the 15,000 morgen, which did not take water, their contention was going to be wrong.

said that the Leader of the Opposition was quite wrong. The ground belonged to the State to-day. At the time the report was made the Government had only to deal with the ground below the dam, the owners of which said they wanted £100 per morgen. Afterwards the Government bought ground. Now, if the owners did not take the water within six months then there would be enough Government ground to take all the water.

They had been informed by technical experts that this scheme could be made a highly successful paying scheme. If that were so this scheme would represent one of the greatest possible steps in the right direction. There appeared to be every chance of making it a success. One of the greatest difficulties in the way so far had been the old native location at Bethanie. Negotiations with the chiefs of the natives had had the result of an agreement to the effect that the Government could take over certain land by giving the natives certain other land. Therefore, the old difficulty was removed. Where could a large area be more easily secured than at this spot? Besides this scheme offered the possibility of great extension.

The water is lacking.

said that in the past this area had been the granary of the Transvaal, but during the recent droughts years had passed in which hardly a bag of grain had been grown there. He wished to say this in order to point to the excellent nature of the ground. But notwithstanding the drought a fairly strong stream could generally be relied on. The watershed was large and on the Rand there was on the average a large rainfall, all the water running in its direction. If the dam were once filled, heavy rains would not be required. In the winter they wanted six to seven inches of water. An important factor was that the Government was the largest owner of land in that part, and he hoped they would remain so. It was all very well to speak of cheaper schemes. However, did hon. members realise that it would be necessary to build a railway line to these cheaper schemes. In this area there was a railway, which was a great advantage. They had spent £500,000 on the railway to the Zak River, and they had one of the best markets in the neighbourhood. Taking all these circumstances into consideration he trusted the Leader of the Opposition would waive his objections, and support this scheme. Unless something were done the drift to the towns would continue, and the position would be rendered more and more serious. What was to become of the class which was loafing in the towns? These people were “lying on the back ” of South Africa, and something had to be done to remedy the state of affairs. Those people had to be helped, even if they were not free from blame. (Hear, hear.)

said he desired to encourage irrigation works in every possible manner. The Free State would offer no impediment to schemes of irrigation. Here they had to do with a scheme which would cost £650,000. His idea about irrigation schemes was that they should be carefully gone into before any money was expended. He personally was in favour of smaller schemes, which if they failed did not involve such heavy losses. Under small individual schemes a great deal would be done for the poor whites. For £630,000 they could lend £1,000 to 630 persons, and a man who had that amount to work with would need to have several white families on his farm. In that way the poor would be helped, and the great danger rightly pointed out by the previous speaker would be avoided. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister as to the danger of people drifting into the towns. In the proposed scheme he felt somewhat scared at the enormous amount involved and at the fact that the irrigable land would cost about £40 per morgen. He would have liked to have heard from the Minister what this ground was so suitable for. If ground was as expensive as that he feared it would not offer great possibilities for settlement, and settlers would not be able to bear the heavy expenses. There were other schemes under which all the ground had not yet been taken up, and he suggested that all the ground there should first be taken up, that these schemes should be made a success before an expensive undertaking like this was embarked on. At Goede Moed they had still ground which was not sufficiently attractive for the poor, as three morgen per family was too little. There was ground also at Kopjes.

He did not wish to place any difficulties in the way of this scheme, but he desired to have more information submitted to the House, and he was unable to vote for the proposal until the information was forthcoming. Therefore he was in favour of the matter being referred to a Select Committee. He knew the Minister of Lands felt much for irrigation, and he was sure that when he had the money he would do something for the Free State, which required more irrigation than any other Province owing to the rainfall there being lower than elsewhere. He further thought the matter should go to a Select Committee, because he held it should be ascertained exactly how much land could be placed under cultivation. With the scant data before them the House could not be justified in voting an expenditure of £600,000. If the scheme was shown to be a payable one, he would support it, otherwise not.

At this point it was moved to adjourn the debate.

The motion was agreed to.

The debate was adjourned until to-morrow.