This Bill, so far as I know, has not been published. To-day is Tuesday, and the hon. member puts the second reading down for Friday. Surely we ought to have more time to study it, and to consult our constituents.

This is a very short Bill, and Friday is the only day a private member can put down the second reading of such a Bill.

That is all the more reason for objecting. This is a very important matter, and we ought to have an opportunity of consulting our constituents. I object.

Second reading on 28th March.

I move—

Let me say at the outset that I believe this case has a better chance of winning the support of the House than it ever has had in its long and chequered career, because it is no longer to be regarded as the Corderoy case, but is entitled to-day to be regarded as the public servants’ case, because the public servants through every recognised body and every known organization in which they are represented have declared themselves wholeheartedly in support of the petition of Mr. Corderoy. I have in my possession letters from every known organization of the public service, commending his petition to the consideration of this House; there is the further reason that never before have so many young men been represented in this House, and I appeal to every one of them to regard this as a matter which should be liquidated and got out of the way in a manner that accords with justice to a man who has been suffering a wrong for many years. There is the further expression of opinion recently conveyed to Mr. Corderoy with regard to this case recently by the late Chief Justice, Sir James Rose-Innes, who writing in June last said—

On the only occasion upon which Mr. Corderoy received a complete hearing at the hands of this House, by means of a select committee, that select committee found in its favour, and there is no doubt that on the merits Mr. Corderoy has an overwhelming case to bring before the courts. His present appeal is not that this House should be burdened with the hearing of the merits of the case, but that the whole matter should be relegated to the courts, that the Government should agree to the raising of the bar which has been placed against him in the courts, so that his claim for a declaration of rights may come before a proper authority. Perhaps I might very briefly state how it comes about that Mr. Corderoy finds himself in the position in which he stands to-day. Mr. Corderoy originally was appointed as a Cape civil servant under section 20 of the Cape Civil Service Act of 1925. Under that section of the Act, a person could be appointed, without the ordinary examination, for special qualifications, and the Auditor-General signed the necessary certificate to show that Mr. Corderoy’s appointment in the service was absolutely necessary, and that there was no other person of similar qualifications available in the ranks of the public service. His appointment was recommended on that ground. His appointment, having once been made, could not be terminated without a certain procedure being observed, and that procedure involved the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. The fact that this was a permanent appointment, not capable of being annulled except in that manner, and the fact that the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament was never given has never been brought before the courts, because Mr. Corderoy himself did not become fully aware that the concurrence of Parliament was lacking until the select committee sat in 1921. It was only then discovered that the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament had not been given to the termination of his appointment, although Parliament had certainly agreed to the payment of a special gratuity to Mr. Corderoy. The payment of a gratuity, however, cannot be interpreted as being the concurrence of Parliament to the express act of terminating the appointment. It is on those simple grounds that the facts of the case have never been before the courts, and it is because he seeks a hearing of the facts of the case in the manner proposed in his petition that he has come before the House for the twenty-second time to ask for redress. I feel that the case needs no great explanation. There is no doubt that the termination of his appointment was wrongfully made. He himself was actually absent on duty in the Transkei, and on his return from that duty he was appalled to find that the whole of the action in connection with the termination of his appointment was brought to a conclusion, and he was virtually thrown out of office. After considerable litigation, the Government applied for and obtained a bar of perpetual silence against Mr. Corderoy in the Supreme Court in June, 1918, but the Judge-President of the Cape Provincial Division, in July, 1925, intimated that the bar had been granted at the request of the Government and for its protection; but if the Government chose to waive this protection to meet Mr. Corderoy in any proceedings, the court would not of itself put forward the bar as an obstacle. This matter appeals to every public servant in the land. If any public servant, devoting himself to his duty, can find himself ejected from office when his back is turned, fixity of tenure in the public service becomes a byword. The case of Mr. Corderoy has an appeal to every public servant in this country, and, more than that, every trades union affiliated to the National Council of Trades Unions has expressed support of the prayer of the petitioner, and I come before you to-day with the support of this large body of people. The National Union of Railwaymen, the Locomotive Society, the Telephone Society, the Postal Union, the Public Servants’ Association and every branch of the public service has united to support the claim of Mr. Corderoy for a fair hearing. I commend this claim to the consideration of this House.

seconded the motion.

I suppose that with a new House, a fresh member to present his petition, and a new Minister, it would have been too much to expect Mr. Corderoy’s case not to crop up again, and I hope, since it has been moved in a new House, that my hon. friend will accept the verdict of the House, and that if we have to hear anything about the Corderoy case again it will be in five years’ time. I am quite unable to accept the motion. This matter goes back to 23 years ago, and this, I think, is the twenty-first time that it has come before this House. All the arguments which the hon. member has so eloquently brought forward have been brought up on numerous occasions. The Cape Government turned it down before Union; the South African party Government went into it time after time, and found itself unable to accept the motion, and this Government listened very sympathetically to the hon. member, as he then was, for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). They accepted a motion which invited them to investigate the matter. The matter was very fully investigated, and the Government came to the conclusion that neither on legal nor on equitable grounds was there any case for relief. A select committee was appointed, it is true, but a perusal of the proceedings of the select committee at once shows that the recommendation made of a certain payment, was one purely for an ex gratia payment. The select committee made that recommendation because, under all the circumstances, they felt sorry for Mr. Corderoy. On the merits, the courts have decided against Mr. Corderoy. This application amounts to this, that whilst Mr. Corderoy, with full knowledge of his legal rights, made an admission in the courts, he now wants to be relieved of the consequences of that admission. I do not think any good purpose can be served either by accepting the motion in its present form, or by the Government undertaking to go into the matter again.

There are one or two points mentioned in the Minister’s reply that would be better understood if I had a word or two to say. With reference to the Minister’s contention that the facts were fully before the House, I wish to draw his attention to the statement of his predecessor, the present Mr. Justice Roos, to the effect that he readily admitted that the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament had not been obtained. That is an admission that the grounds for Mr. Corderoy’s retirement were entirely illegal. Not only that but it is established on the evidence of the Auditor-General that when Mr. Corderoy’s retirement was carried out a form was included among the papers which should have been signed by him but did not bear his signature. The whole of these proceedings in fact were so invalid that they savoured of an illegal transaction. Mr. Corderoy did not become aware that both Houses had not concurred until 1921, and although under examination he may have been held to have admitted that Parliament had concurred, because of the concealment of the papers from Mr. Corderoy, he was not aware of the facts at that moment. The Minister is not correct in stating that the whole of those facts have been before the House. A new fact is that of the statement of Sir James Rose-Innes, in which he commends this case to the consideration of Parliament and the Government, and states they are the only authorities who can give any redress. He also says Mr. Corderoy’s case is an exceedingly hard one. I hope the Minister is mistaken in believing that the appeal of Mr. Corderoy for a fair hearing is going to be rejected. Mr. Corderoy has maintained an unwavering faith in the justice of Parliament. He has preserved a generous faith in mankind and in the justice of the courts, and no case has ever been presented that more eloquently demanded that the matter should be allowed to come before the courts and be judged on the facts.

Motion put and the House divided:

I move—

I hope my introduction of this motion will not raise the demon of inter-provincial jealousy or ill-feeling. The motion, in terms, refers to the provinces of the Cape of Good Hope and the Transvaal. I want to say at once that I did not frame it in those terms with any idea that those two provinces were to be put on a superior footing to the provinces of Natal or the Free State. I came to the conclusion that perhaps the Orange Free State and Natal would not welcome any interference with their concerns, so I stuck to my own business and limited the motion to the province, one of whose constituencies I represent; also for the reason that there are special circumstances in the case of the Cape which may, or may not, obtain in the case of the other two provinces mentioned. So far as concerns the Transvaal, I want to make it clear that I do not suggest that the rate of subsidy to the Transvaal should be levelled down, but that the subsidy of the Cape of Good Hope should be levelled up, so that the Transvaal members need not fear that I propose to attack the contribution which they receive from the Union Government. I should also like to reassure the Minister on that point. I shall not suggest anything that may have the effect of increasing that provincial deficit about which the hon. Minister expressed so much concern a few days ago. The second Schedule of Act 46 of 1925 fixes the rate of subsidy in different classes. There is a subsidy for European pupils receiving primary or secondary education, for European pupils or students attending continuation schools, and for pupils training as teachers, etc. In order to avoid unnecessary detail I propose to deal only with the first section of that schedule, that is, the section which lays down the rate of subsidy for European pupils receiving primary or secondary education, but what I propose to say in regard to that section will apply equally to the others. As hon. members well know, the revenue of the provincial administrations is derived from three sources. The provincial councils have certain powers of taxation; in addition to that, they receive the proceeds of certain taxes which are collected by the Union Government and handed over to the provinces in whose areas these taxes are being collected; and thirdly, they receive a subsidy from the Union Government. I want to refer shortly to the history of the provincial finances so as to indicate what the position was immediately prior to the present system. For the first three years after Union, all provincial expenditure was met by the Union Government, but after that, various financial relations Acts were passed, the details of which I am not going to refer to, further than to state what the position was at the time when Act 46 of 1925 was passed. The position prior to the passing of that Act was this. The Union Government gave each province a subsidy amounting to one-half of the provincial expenditure, a subsidy on what was known as the pound for pound principle. The other half was found as follows: The proceeds of certain taxes were handed over, such as the transfer duty, liquor licences, trade and professional licences. The provinces received the sums collected by the Union Government in each of the respective provinces, under those headings. Then they raised a certain amount of money by direct taxation, by such means as the amusement tax, the property tax and the fees that they drew for hospital and educational services. In addition to that, there were, what I may describe as special concessions to the provinces. In the case of Natal and the Orange Free State a special subsidy was paid to each of these provinces of £100,000. Then the Transvaal provincial administration was given the proceeds of the native pass collections over and above the proceeds of the other taxes to which I have referred. In the Cape, as everyone knows, a good deal of the administration of the country is done through local bodies, such as divisional councils and native councils, and, in 1922 the school boards. The Cape was allowed to reckon the expenditure of divisional councils, school boards and native councils for the purpose of the pound for pound subsidy. These special concessions more or less balanced one another, and enabled the various provinces to carry on and meet their expenditure and do the work of the country which they are supposed to do. That was the position in 1922. In that year the question of provincial expenditure caused the Government of the day a good deal of concern and a commission was appointed to enquire into the whole question of provincial finances and to make recommendations. That commission was known as the Baxter commission, and in 1923 it presented its report. The commission recommended a number of very radical changes in the provincial finances. It condemned the pound for pound principle as being unsound. It declared certain sources of revenue such as trade and occupational licences, and the Transvaal native pass fees as being unsuitable for provincial purposes. It recommended that the subsidy to be paid by the Union Government should be based on the cost of the educational services rendered by the provinces, basing its recommendations on the estimated cost of education in the provinces. It recommended that the Transvaal province be paid £16 7s. 6d. per pupil in the primary or secondary schools, the Free State, £15 8s., and the Cape and Natal, £14. If the commission’s recommendations had been adopted, the special subsidies would have been swept away. The report raised a storm of hostile criticism. I believe it was discussed in the Cape Provincial Council and its recommendations were rejected almost unanimously. The report aroused so much determined opposition that the Government of the day did not venture to take a vote upon it, and the document was generally considered to be dead. When a change of Government took place, however, the report was revived, a conference of administrators was held, and a Bill was introduced which, although it followed, in the main, the recommendations of the Baxter commission, departed from them in certain respects. For instance, the proceeds of the trade and occupational licences were handed over to the various provinces. The Bill provided for a subsidy on the basis recommended by the Baxter commission, but the Government recognized that the Cape had a claim for special treatment on account of a special problem which applied to the Cape and not to the other provinces. That was the problem of sparsity of population. In the Cape there are large areas such as you find in the north-west, which can support only a small population, and as a result of that, the task of educating the children—scattered as they are over a wide area—is more difficult and expensive than it is in the provinces where the population is not so sparse. The Government recognized this, and it agreed that for the first 30,000 pupils the subsidy should be estimated at £16 7s. 6d. per head. I would point out, however, that Natal and the Orange Free State though they have not the problem of sparsity of population also received the same concession. In addition to that, Natal and the Free State also received a special subsidy of £75,000 a year, and on the top of that, the Transvaal was allowed to retain the native pass fees. The unpleasant fact remained that, so far as the Cape is concerned, it entirely lost the benefit of its divisional council and native council expenditure for subsidy purposes. A Bill was introduced embodying this principle of unjustifiable differentiation against the Cape, and the measure was passed. I have not overlooked the fact that the native pass fees which are handed over to the Transvaal province are levied only in the Transvaal. But the point I make is that the Transvaal and the other provinces found it impossible to carry on on the bare terms of the Baxter report, plus trade and occupational licences, and it was only the Cape that was expected to do this. In order to show that the subsidy recommended by the Baxter commission was not recommended as a permanent and final solution of the problem, but only as a stopgap for the time being, I will quote from the report itself. On page 62, the commission state—

That shows, I think, conclusively, that the recommendations made were not made to be final, and the Act itself, it will be noticed, seems to recognize that this is only a temporary solution, because sub-section (3) of Section 2 provides that the rates of subsidy set out in the schedule shall he paid unless and until otherwise determined by Parliament. My next point is that the commission arrived at its estimate of the cost per pupil in each province by taking the actual cost of education in 1921-’22, and making certain adjustments therein, but did not enquire into whether education had reached the same pitch of development in each province. It appears that the other provinces had developed further, and spent more upon education than the Cape. On page 18 we have some interesting figures, where the commission gave the expenditure per head of enrolment in 1913, and in 1921, showing an increase in the cost during the course of these eight years. In the Cape it increased from £10 and a fraction to £17 and a fraction, or by 64 per cent.; in Natal there was an increase of 146 per cent.; in the Transvaal one of 91 per cent., and in the Orange Free State one of 92 per cent. That is confirmed by other figures. In 1913 only one province spent more per pupil than the Cape, and that was the Transvaal, but in 1921 they all spent more on education per pupil than the Cape. We find further that up to 1921 there was a rather abnormal development of the high school system in the Transvaal. On page 27 of its report, the commission says—

The number was 11 in 1917, and 40 in 1921. The commission also reported that the expenditure involved was serious, and that the number of teachers was less than one to sixteen pupils, and—

The commission did not deal quite fairly with the Cape—I do not say intentionally—because they did not enquire into the question whether education had reached the same stage or was given on the same scale in all the provinces. They made no allowance whatever for the feature I have already referred to—sparsity of population—which is a feature which applies essentially to the Cape. Taking the 1926 census figures, the density of European population at the Cape was 2.55 to the square mile, and in the Transvaal 5.51, or more than double. It cannot be said it is due to the large urban population on the Rand, because in the rural areas we find the same phenomenon. In the 1921 census it appears that taking the rural areas alone, the density of population at the Cape was 1.06 to the square mile, and in the Transvaal 1.93, or again almost double. If you take the figures showing the number of children, we find, more or less, the same feature in the Cape; approximately 138,000 children over a total area of 277,000 square miles, that is five children to every 10 square miles; whereas in the Transvaal there were 122,000 children to 110,000 square miles, that is roughly 11 school-going children per 10 square miles, so not only is your population twice as dense in the Transvaal, but the school-going children are also twice the number per square mile. I cannot give accurate figures to show the cost of education in sparsely as compared with densely populated areas, but it seems obvious it must be more expensive in the sparsely populated areas. In these areas, such as we have in the northwestern districts of the Cape Province, it seems to me that the cost of elementary education must be just about double what it is in the more densely populated areas. The allowance the Cape Province got under the Act of 1925 —£2 7s. 6d. per head extra for the first 30,000 pupils only—is utterly insufficient to make up for the extra cost of educating these children. This point was raised by the superintendent-general of education of the Cape, the late Dr. Viljoen, a great public servant, whose efficiency and devotion to duty will be acknowledged in all quarters of this House. He pointed out that on the 1924 figures, the latest he had available, it required 100 teachers in the Transvaal to teach 2,573 pupils, and that to teach the same number of pupils in the Cape 115 teachers were required that is, 15 per cent. more teachers were required in the Cape to teach the same number of pupils on account of the problem of sparsity of population. That is taking the province as a whole. If those figures are correct, and there is no reason to doubt them, that difference is sufficient to neutralize entirely any differentiation in favour of the Transvaal based on the cost of living. An extra cost of 15 per cent., owing to sparsity of population in the Cape, roughly balances the 17 per cent. difference in the cost of living in the Transvaal as compared with the Cape. Those figures in the superintendent-general’s report of 1925 have not been very much modified with the passage of the years. It now takes 100 teachers in the Transvaal to teach 2,400 pupils, whereas in the Cape it takes 109 teachers to teach that number of pupils. Even at the present day, therefore, there is a difference of 9 per cent. owing to the sparsity of population in the Cape Province. The commission which made the recommendation with which I am dealing, took into account the difference in the cost of living in the Cape as compared with the Transvaal, and accepted the findings of the Graham commission on that point. The Graham commission in their fourth report found that in order to put the Cape civil servant and the Transvaal civil servant on the same footing as regards the cost of living, the Transvaal man drawing £306 should have an allowance of £51. There was found to be a difference of 17 per cent. due to cost of living, and the local allowance was based on that. It is clear that the commission took that as one portion of the basis of their recommendation, because on page 62 of their report they say that the difference between the salaries in the Transvaal and the Cape, made by local allowances, vary from 12 to 17 per cent., and the commission considered that 17 per cent. would be a reasonable figure to adopt for the purposes of a grant in aid. This would give an amount of £16 7s. 6d. to the Transvaal, and then they went on to recommend the rates of subsidy. The recommendation was based on the amount of local allowance paid, and that again was based on the findings of the Graham commission. The Graham report was made in the year 1919, and I do not think there is any doubt that at the present day the figures the Graham commission arrived at are obsolete. I have here the figures worked out by the Cost of Living Commission, and they show that where in Cape Town the cost of living for a small family amounted to £319 14s. 7d., the cost of living for the same family in the Witwatersrand and Pretoria area is 6¾ per cent. higher. These are the figures for the 30th June, 1929. Whereas in 1919 the cost of living was £300 in Cape Town as compared with £351 in Pretoria, in June of last year there is a difference of only 6¾ per cent. If the difference in the cost of living is taken at 6½ per cent., the Cape would be entitled to a subsidy of £15 7s. per head as against £16 7s. 6d. in the Transvaal. If the Graham report figures are obsolete, there should be a difference in the subsidy at the most of about £1, and that is leaving entirely out of account the factor of sparsity of population. With regard to the figures of the Graham report, I want to indicate where in two or three respects they are open the attack. The Graham commission found that an allowance ought to be made to civil servants at Pretoria and on the Rand for such things as servants’ wages, laundry, train and tram fares, and small incidental expenses which they said were higher on the Rand and at Pretoria than in Cape Town, and they estimated that in the case of a man drawing a salary of £306 per annum this would work out at 25s. per month. He would have to spend 25s. per month more than a man drawing the same salary in Cape Town. It is possible that that was the case in 1919, but it is most decidedly open to doubt whether that obtains at the present day. If there is any difference at all, it is rather against the man at the Cape under those heads. Then the Graham commission, as part of the basis of its recommendation, took a comparison of the rentals at Cape Town as compared with those on the Rand and at Pretoria. They accepted figures tending to show that for a three to five roomed house in Johannesburg, the rental was two-and-a-half times that of a similar house in Cape Town. Section 126 of the report reads—

A person to-day has to pay as much in Cape Town as in Johannesburg or Pretoria for a house of the same description. The census figures are not necessarily a reliable guide as the census took five-to six-roomed houses without ascertaining that the type of house referred to in Cape Town was the same as the type of house referred in Johannesburg or Pretoria. This point has always been a bone of contention between civil servants and the railway servants on the one hand, and the Government on the other. The experience of those who have lived in both areas is that living in the Cape Peninsula is decidedly not cheaper than it is in Pretoria or the Witwatersrand area. There is another fact the commission left out of account, and that is that in the Transvaal there is free secondary education. A headmaster or senior master of a school in Johannesburg or Pretoria may have two or three children to educate, and he gets their education free, whereas his confrere in the Cape, if the children have reached the stage of secondary education, may have to pay £50 or £60 per annum for the same education. Now the difference in the subsidies presses hardly upon the Cape in another respect. In the year 1925-’26, educational expenditure in the Cape was two-and-a-half millions. The subsidy received in that year amounted to about £2,000,000, leaving £480,000 to be paid out of revenue. In the year 1929-’30 educational expenditure amounted to £3,027,195 and the subsidy to £2,104,254, so that about £923,000 had to be found for education out of the general revenue of the province. The expenditure increased in four years by £526,158 and the subsidy by £81,490. Then if we analyze provincial budgets, we find that in the Cape out of the total provincial expenditure of £4,628,754 (eliminating expenditure on native education) £1,908,000 was found by direct taxation, imposed either by the provincial council or by divisional councils and native councils. That is 45 per cent. of the total. The Cape, therefore, found 45 per cent. of the whole of its expenditure by direct taxation. In the Transvaal, on the other hand, direct taxation accounts for £1,148,200 out of a total of £3,946,170; in other words, 29 per cent., so the Cape taxpayer has to find by direct taxation. 45 per cent. of its provincial expenditure and the Transvaal taxpayers find only 29 per cent. by direct taxation. Take another point. The Transvaal provides free secondary education. We cannot do so, though I understand an attempt is to be made to give free education up to the age of 15. Whether that will be possible or not, I cannot say. It will depend upon the money available. Then education is handicapped in other respects. We provide to a limited extent medical inspection in schools in this province, but cannot find the money for medical treatment, though this is urgently needed. In the Transvaal there is medical treatment through school clinics. Another point is that we cannot afford to give our teachers six months’ furlough until they have served 19 years. In the Transvaal the period is only six and a half to eight years. In conclusion, I urge that the Union has now been in existence for 20 years and the time has now arrived to end this anomaly which has placed the Cape at a disadvantage as compared with the other provinces; it is time this differentiation should disappear. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the motion and level up the Cape subsidy to the amount received by the Transvaal.

I second the motion. I wish also to refer to the Cape provincial subsidy. This is a grievance of long standing. We are not opposed in the Cape Province to the higher subsidies that are received in the northern provinces, but we want these subsidies to be levelled up, more or less. In 1923, at the Durban conference, the Cape ultimately received, per child, an amount of £14 11s. 11d. The Transvaal and Natal received £16 7s. 6d., and the Orange Free State received £15 18s. We have asked the Minister of Finance with regard to this, and he says it is the law, and the law must stand. We ask the Minister of Finance why this Cape Province receives a lesser subsidy than the northern provinces. No valid argument has yet been advanced, and I think the time has arrived when this House and the country are entitled to have a clear explanation upon the subject. I wonder if the Minister of Finance realizes that the Cape to-day is receiving £255,000 less than it is entitled to. It is larger than the three other provinces put together. I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes that on account of the sparsity of the population of the Cape Province the cost of education to-day is 15 per cent. higher than it is in the northern provinces. There is another point I want the Minister to consider also. It is the Cape Province that has borne the cost of education for the last 50 years, because teachers were educated in this province at the cost of the province, and eventually were sent to other parts of the Union. It is therefore this province which has borne to a very large extent the cost of education for the last 50 years. So far as I am aware, the Minister either cannot or will not give us a clear statement in regard to the subsidy. I am inclined to think that the Minister is labouring under a misapprehension. Some people say that the cost of living is higher in the other provinces than it is in the Cape. I think that is a myth. When we look at the cost of living figures, we usually see that there are ten of the principal towns in the Union for which figures are quoted. We find also that everything, excluding house rent, is more or less the same light throughout the country. We find that in Natal, sugar is cheaper than in the Cape. We find that in the Cape, oats, wheat and barley and their products are cheaper than they are in the Transvaal. Then, in the Transvaal, coal is cheaper than it is in the Cape. We also find that in the Free State dairy products are cheaper than they are in the Cape. So you find that the cost of living is more or less the same right throughout the provinces. The one exception is house rent. I believe that in Bloemfontein, and in that one centre only, house rent is 63 per cent. higher than it is in Kimberley. In Bloemfontein it is higher than it is in many towns in the Cape Province. But that is no reason why the whole oState should get a hidifferentiation between the provnces which was decided at the Durban conferencegher subsidy than the Cape. There are probably a thousand of the Free State should get a higher subsidy than the Cape. There are probably a thousand teachers in the rural areas of the Free State, with only 200 resident in Bloemfontein. Why, therefore, because there are 1,000 or more teachers in the Free State, most of whom are not affected by the high rents in Bloemfontein, should the whole of the Free State receive a higher subsidy than the whole of the Cape? I contend, generally speaking, that the cost of living is not higher in one province than in another. I have given this matter some attention, and it has been said that after the war the Transvaal Province and the Free State were backward, and they required sympathetic treatment. We have every sympathy with them. I think, however, that they have overtaken it, and the sympathy to-day is due to the Cape Province. Then, it is said that they give a higher standard of education in the northern provinces. We cannot be expected to pay for that. Taxation is higher there, it is said. I think that taxation is as high in the Cape as it is in the Transvaal, when we take into consideration our divisional council system. These are important points, on which stress has been laid, particularly the higher cost of education in the Transvaal. The high cost may be the result of teachers receiving higher salaries, and, therefore, a higher subsidy is necessary. But I contend that the teachers in the Cape are receiving salaries almost as high, if not as high in many cases, as teachers in the Transvaal. I will give a few figures to the Minister of Finance for his consideration in regard to salaries. Men primary assistants, metric, plus two years, £225, rising to £405 in the Cape. In the Transvaal, £200, rising to £420. Women primary assistants, matric, plus two years, £180, rising to £270 in the Cape; and £170, rising to £315 in the Transvaal. Men secondary assistants in the Cape, T3, plus matric, £195 to £540; in the Transvaal, £200 to 420: matric, plus two years, in the Cape, £240 to £540; in the Transvaal, £200 to £420, and in the case of trained teachers, £230 to £420. In the Cape, matric, plus three years, £285 to £540; in the Transvaal, £240 to £500, and after five years, up to £540; and in the case of trained teachers, £270 to £500, and after five years £540. In the Cape degree, plus one year or one and a half years, £330 to £540; in the Transvaal, £270 to £600; and in the case of trained teachers, £300 to £600. In the Cape degree, plus two years, £375 to £540; in the Transvaal, £270 to £600. and in the case of trained teachers, £300 to £600. Women secondary assistants, Junior Certificate, plus two years (Cape T3), £135 to £330; in the Transvaal, £150 to £315. In the Cape, T3 plus matric, £165 to £360; in the Transvaal, £170 to £315; in the Cape, matric, plus two years, £195 to £360; in the Transvaal, £170 to £315. In the three latter grades, the salaries are the same in the Transvaal for trained as well as untrained teachers. On the whole, I think the Cape, in certain divisions at all events, is paying a higher salary than the Transvaal, and I think that this higher cost of education, upon which so much stress has been laid, is a myth, and we should not therefore consider the question of the higher cost of education, nor of the higher cost of living in the northern provinces. I want to know if these two points are laid aside, upon what does the Minister base his subsidy? I want to know why it is he gives the northern provinces a higher subsidy than the Cape. The Minister has said that the Cape must tax itself. That is the essence of inconsistency. We cannot tax while the central Government is remitting taxation. The figures show that in the Transvaal a subsidy was received of £1,825,000 on an enrolment of 110,000 children. In the Cape we receive £1,809,000 on an enrolment of 138,000 children, that is, 28,000 children more. These figures refer to European children only. The Transvaal expends per pupil £25, whereas the Cape can only allow itself £19 8s. In 1928 the expenditure on education in the Cape was larger than the Government subsidy by £911,040, which had to be found out of ordinary revenue. That is why the Cape is always in difficulties. The Minister said he would not amend the Financial Relations Act. This is not a law of the Medes and the Persians. Most laws are amended out of all recognition in from 10 to 15 years, for conditions are always changing. The distribution of the subsidy is not a national phenomenon, but it is subject to change. It is like every other decree. It is a matter for periodical readjustment. That is another point I put to the Minister, and I should like to have an explanation. In 1910-’13 the expenditure of the Provincial Council was met by the Union Government. In 1913-’17, when we had the first Financial Relations Act, whereby the increase of normal expenditure was subsidized on the 50-50 basis. The Durban Conference in 1925-’26 introduced the capitation grant, whereby all provinces received the assigned revenues, such as licences and transfer fees, but, apart from this, the Free State and Natal each received an additional £100,000 per annum, which was subsequently reduced to £75,000 per annum. In the Transvaal they received an amount of £400,000 by way of native pass fees. In the Cape, provision was made that all expenditure on divisional councils, school boards and native councils came out of rates raised locally, such expenditure to rank for subsidy; but under the Durban Conference agreement, the £ for £ subsidy disappeared. The result is that the Transvaal still enjoys the advantage of £400,000 annually, Natal and the Free State receive £75,000 each annually, but the Cape has lost its subsidy on the 50-50 basis as provided for in the first Financial Relations Act since the £ for £ principle has been done away with. The loss to the Cape is £330,000 per annum, since last year’s expenditure amounted to £660,000. Furthermore, I contend the Cape is worse off to-day than it was in 1913 by £120,000 a year. Since expenditure in 1929-’30 was £4,551,776, add to this expenditure of divisional councils £520,000, and native councils £140,000, gives a total of £5,175,776. Under the 1913 Act the Cape should have received £2,587,888, but we received only £2,467,609. We were therefore worse off by £120,000. There has always been an outcry against provincial councils, but I contend that those who are loudest in their demands for the abolition of provincial councils know the least about them. Naturally, expenditure has increased owing to the increase in regard to schools, hospitals and roads, and because of other factors resulting from wider services, but the Cape can account for every penny of its expenditure. In the Cape Province we feel sore about this point, that we are receiving less than we are entitled to, and I hope the Minister will give a clear exposition of the matter in his reply.

The hon. member who has just sat down gave as one of his reasons why this legislation should be revised that the Cape Province at the moment is worse off under this subsidy system than when in 1913 it had the £ for £ principle. I wonder how many hon. members there still are to-day who are prepared really to defend that £ for £ principle, and it is just because that principle is so impossible that it was abolished. There was a time from 1919 to 1925 that this House neatly every year found it necessary to introduce legislation which dealt with these difficult financial relations between the Union and the provinces. In 1924, accordingly, we tried to get away from this unsatisfactory and difficult system which the hon. member now apparently still wishes to defend. We did that after we had had consultations with the representatives of the different provinces, and they were made up from all parties. The executive committees of the provincial councils consisted of various parties, and because the Labour party in the Transvaal had no representative on the executive committee, one of them was invited, and he was there as well. We tried to find a system which would give more satisfaction. Shortly before the previous Government appointed a strong commission to make a full investigation, and at that conference which we held the information which was available was used. What was at that time called the Baxter report was issued by a commission, and was subjected to very severe criticism in the country, both inside and outside the House. It was impossible to carry out the report in its entirety. No one would, however, be so foolish as to deny that there were valuable recommendations in the report. One of the valuable recommendations was in relation to the basis on which the subsidy was to be regulated for the various provinces We took up that attitude because education was the chief service which was entrusted to the provinces, and as it is agreed that the central Government has a national obligation with regard to education, we had to accept the cost of education in the various provinces as the basis for the grant of subsidies; to that we added certain sources of taxation which were allocated to the provinces, and from which they had to get additional funds to pay for the services entrusted to them. We maintained the sound and necessary economic principle that when a body is given the right of spending public money, it must also bear the responsibility of obtaining that money, or a part of it, so that it can be called to account by those who have to contribute the money in the form of taxes. The motion before us to-day is due to the fact that after five years of this system another appeal has been made to us to assist one of the provinces. We have increased the subsidies, but an appeal was immediately made to us again as to whether the central Government was prepared to put its hand into its pocket from time to time, and to provide the provinces with money without the provinces having the least responsibility for obtaining those funds, We should be doing violence to that sound principle of financial control if we agreed to this appeal and again gave the Cape Province a dole or donation, because the other provinces will soon, very soon, come with similar requests. The Act of 1925 was passed as a result of the Durban Conference, and the provinces have now gone on for five years unconcernedly spending money in connection with the exercise of the functions entrusted to them. Not a single province, with the exception of Natal, has, however, imposed further taxation. The Cape Province was on the point in 1924 of putting heavy taxes on to the taxpayers of this province, but, as a result of the Durban agreement, the Cape Province did not impose that taxation. It has now gone on for five years and shown a series of surpluses and deficits. At the end of this year the Cape is the only province that will have a credit balance in its account. It shows that the financial provision made for the Cape Province was not in the least unfair. The hon. member says that the Cape Province has not the privileges the other provinces have. He mentions free education, and adds that the system of expensive bursaries for children who come to school does also not exist in the Cape Province. It is true that the Cape Province does not have them, but it is also true that the Transvaal puts its hand into its pocket for services where the Cape Province is not prepared to do so. When the Baxter commission fixed the basis of the subsidy in 1924, they expressly said that they had not considered free education and the bursary system of the Transvaal. They regarded it as a kind of luxury, and they took up the attitude that if a province wanted a luxury like that it must be prepared to pay for it itself. The Transvaal is doing so. If we are now to take up the attitude of advocating uniformity between the provinces in every respect, then we shall find one of these days that the other provinces will come here and ask for uniformity in connection with matters where they think that they are not treated so well as the Cape Province is. There are other things that the other provinces bring up to show that they are not treated on the same footing as the Cape Province. I do not think that we can expect complete uniformity. The Transvaal said at Durban that they have all the gold mines in that province, and why could they not have the right of taxing the gold mines. They pointed out the large revenue the State got from the Transvaal, and thought that it ought to be taken into consideration. The Free State again says that it came into the Union undeveloped, but free from debt. In that way it became responsible for the debts of all the provinces. That province wanted special treatment on account of the increased debt it had to bear. We get all these representations, and we cannot solve this matter on the basis of uniformity. I think this motion in the main rests on the principle of uniformity. It is argued on that basis, but uniformity was never the basis of the financial relations between the provinces.

That was originally the basis.

No, it was not so. I was at that time a member of the executive committee in the Free State, and we met Minister Burton in connection with this matter. The basis was that we enquired what the services were which the provinces had to perform, and the sources of taxation and funds which they were to be allotted to enable them to perform those services. If uniformity were the basic principle, what right had we to give an additional £100,000 to Natal and the Free State at that time, and now £75,000? Is there anyone in this House who will say that those special grants must disappear? What will the position be then? Even if they put a high tax on the provinces, they will still be unable to perform their services. I have before me an extract of what the leader of the Opposition said when he introduced the Financial Relations Act of 1913. According to the Hansard report, he said—

This shows that at that time in 1913 uniformity was not the basis of the subsidy. In 1925, when the amending Provincial Financial Relations Act was passed, it was accepted in the first place by the representatives of the various provinces as a fair method of solution. I can quote here what Sir Frederic de Waal said. I have already quoted it on a previous occasion, and his words amounted to this, that he considered my proposals a fair solution provided the provinces were given a fair chance to work out their own salvation. What was the position in this House? There were representatives of the Cape Province here, but the proposed solution was accepted with acclamation and without a contrary vote. The only criticism which came from the opposite side was that of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and he attacked me because I departed from the basis recommended in the Baxter report, and had made a concession to the Cape Province with regard to the first 30,000 children. I am certain that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) would not have brought up these grievances and charges if they were in this House at that time. I have a suspicion that this matter is raised here in view of the provincial elections which are close at hand. The same matter was also brought up on a former occasion just before a provincial election, but I think that when the Government and the Minister of Finance are attacked about this on a public platform, it is only necessary to refer to what the hon. member for Standerton said when the measure in question was debated. He complained that I had dealt too generously with the Cape Province, and had given £70,000 more to the Cape Province than the Baxter report recommended. Then it is said: “We in the Cape Province pay land tax, which is not levied in the other provinces”; but my friends here selected that form of tax. They can abolish it to-morrow. It only produces about £250,000, and if they levied the tax which in Natal and the Free State is levied on individuals, they can collect about £500,000. That will enable them to establish many of the services which they do not possess to-day.

We have the divisional councils.

Certainly, and they perform valuable services, which the other provinces do not have.

They tax.

But you choose. The other provinces do not elect to tax their people in that way, and accordingly do not possess the roads that you have here. You have belter roads. We cannot get past the fact that, according to the settlement that took place, the provinces have been in a position during the past five years to go on, to carry out the work without retrenching necessary services, and the Cape Province is to-day the only province which has a surplus in its account. I, personally, am thankful that the settlement lasted for five years. I think that shows that it was sound. I do not wish to take up the attitude that settlement must continue for ever, but unless we want to do violence to the sound financial principle and are merely going to pay out in future without the provinces bearing the financial responsibility, I think it will be very undesirable to say that the Government ought to be ready to give assistance on the first occasion they get into difficulties.

The Cape Province is not in distress.

Exactly. During the debate reference was made to the disappearance of the difference in the cost of living which existed in the various provinces. That is one of the factors considered by the Baxter commission.

The only one.

No, the other was, and it was the chief factor, the cost of education in the provinces.

How did they arrive at it?

They took what the provinces had actually paid, excluding free education—that was regarded as a luxury. The provinces supplied certain services for a number of years, and then it was ascertained what the actual cost of education was.

The basis was wrong.

The same thing still exists to-day in the public service. It is not fictitious, but was the result of proper enquiry which showed what the cost of living in the various provinces was, and also that there was a difference between the Cape Province and the northern provinces. It is said that it has recently commenced to disappear. This is a matter which, inter alia, enjoys the attention of the Government commission which is enquiring whether it is desirable to make any alterations in the public service. The enquiry will also be valuable in connection with the fixing of the new settlement in connection with this matter. I should, however, like to know from hon. members whether, if the report shows that the difference has disappeared, we ought necessarily to increase the grants, or will the House be prepared to accept the responsibility of reducing them in the Transvaal? This is a question which will have to be answered if the difference in the cost of living does actually disappear. I have never had any illusion about the permanency of the settlement we effected in Durban. It is a matter into which the Government will probably have to go later to see whether that basis can still continue. Whatever Government is in power, however, it will be necessary to go into the matter again, but then it will also be necessary to look into the general question of our provincial system. If we cannot make any lasting and more satisfactory settlement, if the taxpayers are not satisfied, we shall necessarily also have to enquire whether the people or the taxpayers, in view of all our difficulties, are prepared to go on with the provincial system with the double taxes, and the lack of uniformity. I am sorry that I cannot accept the motion as it stands at this stage. The Government will have to be guided by the enquiry which is now being made in connection with the matter. The factors which are the basis of the grants will have to be gone into, and it will have to depend upon the result of the enquiry whether the existing arrangement will have to be revised or whether we can continue on the existing basis.

I do not want to go back too far but I would like to say that at one time the subsidies to the provinces were based on the £ for £ system. This led to extravagance, because it meant that the provincial council that spent the most money got the largest subsidy from the Treasury. The basis of subsidy was altered into a basis of the block grant system, which proved unsatisfactory, and the Government of that day appointed the Provincial Finances Commission, under the presidentship of Mr. Duncan Baxter. This commission issued a lengthy and valuable report. At that time I was a member of the Cape provincial council, and hon. members of the Nationalist party in that council, in discussing the report, condemned it altogether. They said it was not worth the paper it was written on. As we all know, not long after that there was a general election, and the present Government came into power. The amusing part of it to me was that the very first thing the present Government did with regard to the provincial subsidy was to act upon the recommendations of the Baxter commission’s report, the very report which they previously condemned. I am sorry to hear the Minister say we are asking for another sop or dole. That is not the case at all. We merely ask to be levelled up, so that we may get the same as the other provinces; preferably the same as the Transvaal, because, I believe, they get the most. We feel that the child of the Cape Province is as much a child of South Africa as the child of the Transvaal. We have been asked, why this difference? We have been told that the cost of living in the Transvaal was high. As the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) pointed out, that would be difficult to prove. If the cost of living is slightly higher in the Transvaal, it would be counter-balanced by the sparcity of population in the Cape.

The Cape is not alone in that position. The Transvaal finds itself in exactly the same position.

I think the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) who moved the motion has pointed out that the Cape is larger than all the other provinces put together and has less people per square mile. May I point out that the people in the Cape have also put their hands into their pockets. For instance, in the Cape, we have the divisional council system, and we have taxed our properties to the extent of £356,248 per annum. That is used on the construction of roads. We have also a provincial property tax to the annual value of £231,000, and we have a wheel tax which brings us in £60,000 a year, making a total of £647,000. I want to assure the Minister that we do also put our hands into our pockets. I am sorry the Minister has left his seat, and I am sorry that he quoted the revenue which the Transvaal derives from gold. Because the gold mines are now the property of the Union as a whole. I think it is a pity that the Minister looks at things from that point of view. He is creating provincialism and I am afraid that jealousy between the provinces will only tend to hamper the progress of the Union as a whole. All we ask is to be levelled up. Treat us all alike, and give us a chance of maintaining that good-fellowship and co-operation which exists between the provinces to-day.

I am sorry the Minister is not here, but I see we are going to have a lot of support for this motion from both sides of the House. I believe the ex-Administrator, the hon. Minister of Mines, was in favour of getting more money from increased subsidies for the Cape. It is quite possible that the old report may have had some mistakes in it and I think we should not attach too much importance to it, because it dealt with conditions that have now been changed, and evidence to-day would reveal a different state of affairs. Supposing the commission of enquiry now mentioned recommends a decrease in subsidies for all the provinces; if the commission recommends this and the Minister introduces it I will agree, but only on a uniform basis of subsidy for all provinces. We have had seven periods of change in our Financial Relations Act, and only in the last period did we have this differentiation between the provinces which was decided at the Durban conference. It has been said that the Cape, of all provinces, should be the one to receive the most, because of its size and population. The Minister has said that if they want to develop beyond the subsidy, they can arrange it by means of their own taxation. I do not agree with the Minister of Finance when he says we have not put our hands into our pockets to raise funds for ourselves. That is not the case. The Transvaal got 67 per cent. of its total expenditure, and it raised 33 per cent.; whilst the Cape received 58 per cent. and raised 42 per cent., so that we are really finding more than the Transvaal. The ex-Administrator, the present Minister of Mines and Industries, will realize the difficulties he had to face in regard to our development. We get no help from the subsidy for our ordinary development. We have to face very serious developments; hospitals especially. Reference has been made to unequal taxation, but we have raised the question of unequal subsidy, not of unequal taxation. I do not think this motion is intended by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) as a political move. It has been going on ever since the subsidies changed. If we wanted to make a political issue of it we could easily show that our secondary bursaries, our indigent boarding-houses and hospitals cannot be developed without an equal subsidy, but we do not want to do that sort of thing in the House. We want to tackle the question on a fair businesslike basis. I think the Cape should receive every consideration, and I am pleased to hear that a commission is now sitting, and I hope the result will be to put all four provinces on an equal footing.

I think a better case can be put forward for the Free State in regard to a subsidy than for the Cape Province. In view, however, of the statement of the Minister, that a commission is now sitting, I beg to withdraw the amendment I proposed.

As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) said, I think the Minister during his régime as Administrator of the Cape Province was as deeply concerned about the subsidy, or want of equality of subsidy for the Cape Province, as any other man in the provincial council. I shall not traverse the ground which has already been gone over by various members. In short, I would like to point out the disabilities which the administration of the Cape provincial council is suffering from to-day, largely through this particular unfairness of the subsidy granted to the Cape. Other speakers have referred to general education, but none of them have referred to the question of salaries of teachers. Although I do not want to make any invidious comparisons, I can say this much that the teachers in the Transvaal are certainly better paid than the teachers in the Cape. That has been tried to be levelled up. I am ascribing these disabilities to the fact that we are not placed on the same level, or in the same way as the Transvaal and the other provinces. As a matter of fact, the old Cape Province has certainly done all the spade-work for bringing up the educational facilities that exist in the country to-day. From time to time, and the Minister of Mines and Industries will bear me out in this, there has been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with regard to the Teachers’ Pension Fund. We are all aware that if this subsidy was levelled up, the Teachers’ Pension Fund might possibly be put on a sound and solid foundation. I would like also to refer, particularly, to the women teachers, who pay into the Teachers’ Pension Fund 4 per cent. of their salary. If, at any time, they wish to get married, or better their conditions, and they leave the service, they lose the whole of the money they have paid into that fund. When they do leave the service, after a certain number of years, they should receive back the contributions they have paid in. As it is now, I go so far as to say that they are being robbed of their money. In the Transvaal, on the other hand, they have an excellent pension fund. The teachers are induced to stay in the Transvaal, and teachers in the Cape Province make a point of going to the Transvaal, the ladies in particular, because they are better paid, and they have better prospects, for when they reach the pensionable age they receive a pension that they can live upon. Again, we cannot afford to allow the teachers in the Cape Province any leave until they have served nineteen years. I think a teacher must serve nineteen years in this province before he can get leave. In the Transvaal the teachers receive six months’ leave, with full emoluments and pay, every five years. There again, teachers are going to the Transvaal in order to get the better conditions prevailing there. There is one little matter I wish to refer to, that has a bearing upon the subject, in regard to the Nurses’ Pension Fund. In the Cape Province the administration have gone out of their way and have promised these nurses that they will have an actuarial investigation, and do everything in their power to get this pension fund of theirs put on a proper basis.

Will the hon. member indicate how all this has any bearing on the motion.

This has a bearing upon the motion, because from time to time it has been said that if the Cape Province was getting its just dues, we should be able to look after the nurses and especially their pension fund portion and transfer the subsidy monies that are now being used for education, to look after the nurses and see that they are properly treated. As it is now it is almost impossible to give them a fair deal.

To a point of order, I understand this money is paid into the general fund of the provincial council as a subsidy, and the proceeds are used for all sorts of services, including nurses, and not specifically for education.

The point of the hon. member is that the money which is meant for education is used by the province for other purposes. If that is so, the hon. member for East London may refer to the benefits that would accrue to nurses, but as nurses are only indirectly affected by the motion, I would ask him not to enter too deeply into the matter.

The money is used for all services in connection with the provincial council, including nursing and hospital services, and occasional services.

I should like to point out that the money devoted to the provincial council is a general subvention, and the amount is based upon the number of scholars. It is not voted as a subsidy for education, but as a subsidy for the general expenses of the provincial council, and it is based upon the number of the scholars on the roll.

We are training nurses and our training is of the very best, but only a small number of them remain in the Cape province, after passing out as qualified nurses, the majority going to the Transvaal, where they receive better pay and higher pensions. When the Cape nurses retire from hospital service they are in a bad financial position, and have to undertake private work in order to make both ends meet. In short the Cape Province is not being treated as it should be, but I hope that if the Minister goes into the matter we shall receive our just dues and that when the nurses retire they too will be able to spend the rest of their days in comparative comfort after the great work they have given to the service.

There is one phase of the matter I wish to deal with and that is native teachers’ salaries. At the Durban conference it was agreed that £240,000 should be paid by the Union exchequer to the Cape Province for native education. Owing to a mistake in calculation, the actual amount was £30,000 less than it should have been, and native education has suffered a great deal in consequence. One result is that the native teachers are severely handicapped. A new scale of salaries was drawn up by the Union authorities, which took effect on paper on January 1st, 1928, but it has not yet been put into operation by the Education Department owing to lack of funds. It is true that teachers joining now are paid the minimum rate according to that scale, but teachers who may have been rendering excellent service for 10 or 15 years receive no more salary than the new entrants. They are still paid the minimum rates and receive no increments. I have a letter from the chief inspector for native education admitting the truth of what I have said, which I would like to read—

Certainly the native teachers have a genuine grievance, and the present position is extremely unsatisfactory. The administration of native education falls under the provincial councils, and the provision of funds under the Union Government, and between the provincial councils and the Native Affairs Department as representative of the Government, these teachers do not know where they are. The Native Affairs Department state that no money is available for increasing teachers’ salaries, but according to the financial statement of the Native Development Fund I have before me, issued by the Native Affairs Department, the Natives’ Develepment Fund has an invested balance of £169,000. Natives have repeatedly asked me how the Government can say it has no money for teachers’ salaries when it has the sum of £169,000 invested. I have done my best to obtain satisfaction and redress from the responsible departments outside the House, and I bring it forward here now simply because I can get satisfaction nowhere else. I hope this serious grievance, which is causing dissatisfaction among the natives, will be rectified. Formerly the Cape Province used to educate native teachers for the Free State and the Transvaal, and are still doing so, and in the same way the Cape used to educate white teachers who, after receiving their training here, migrated to the northern provinces because they could obtain bigger salaries there than here. Fortunately, this matter has since been rectified, but nevertheless the Cape has borne and is still bearing a heavy financial burden, and it is only fair that native teachers should be properly compensated and receive the salaries and increments provided for in the scale laid down by the Union Government to which I have already referred. I see both the Minister of Native Affairs and the Minister of Finance are not in the House, but I trust that the Prime Minister, who was Minister of Native Affairs when the scale was published, will look into the matter and bring about the necessary amelioration of the position.

I think this is a very unfortunate motion, because the debate it has elicited cannot but lead to a certain amount of provincialism. That is very unfortunate in this House, and a few points were mentioned which are not just to the Transvaal, and, therefore, I have risen to say a few words. I think if the hon. members go back 20 years they will find that the Transvaal was self-supporting, and that the population paid no taxes. Notwithstanding that the colony had a surplus every year of about £1,000,000 for the development of the country. Accordingly we in the Transvaal looked out towards the ideal of unification, that the burdens which would be placed upon us under Union would not exceed the benefit which we should get from unification. Immediately after Union we were taxed, which was partly due to the debts of other provinces. Hence as Transvaalers we feel that we have the right to speak on this matter. With regard to the provincial subsidies, it is said that the Cape is being unfairly treated in comparison with us, but the employers’ tax, and the liquor licence monies were taken from us in the Transvaal, and we were also refused the right of levying a gold tax which we were previously able to impose without the gold mines suffering. These taxes were all taken away without anything being put in their place. In Natal it was just the reverse. In Natal the liquor licence monies were added and the Cape Province has got a grant of £250,000 for native education, while Natal got £49,000, and the Transvaal only £46,000. Here the Cape Province was again preferred. I think this motion is very unfortunate. Speakers opposite have said that they have been unfairly treated, and I think that one of them even said that the Cape was treated like a step-child. I therefore want to move an amendment which, in my opinion, is quite fair to all the provinces, viz.—

I second the amendment. We are constantly hearing that hon. members from the Cape are dissatisfied, and I have many times pointed out that not only the taxpayers of the Cape Province are dissatisfied, but that those in the Transvaal are in the same position. They say they are unfairly treated, and that the amount they pay into the central fund as a basis should be sufficient. That is why I am strongly in favour of the amendment.

I do not presume to understand what is going to be the implications of this amendment. To me it seems that the hon. member has proposed that the basis of calculating the subsidy shall be proportionate to the amount which each province contributes to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If that is the case, there would be no doubt that there will be a large discrimination in favour of the Cape Province. I do not suppose the Minister of Finance is going to accept such an amendment. There may be other factors one ought to introduce. We all know, and it is old history, but it is worth while to look at things from the right aspect, that schools, roads, hospitals and so forth were allocated to the provincial councils at Union, but no provision was made for financing the provinces for the maintenance of these services, and up to 1913 the Union assumed the obligations for running these services. In addition to that, all outstanding obligations which had accrued in the various provinces were wiped off the slate, as it were, and became a charge on the central Government. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance that there were large commitments in respect of teachers’ pensions, and no compensation has ever been allocated to the Cape Province for the obligations in respect of pensions accruing at the time of Union. It will be remembered a commission was established under Mr. Jagger, which considered ways and means and the best method of financing the services allocated to the provincial councils. Whatever the Minister may say, its recommendations were almost on an equality until the new recommendations were introduced, and there was an equality with regard to the special allowances given to Natal and the Free State, and an equality on the basis of subsidizing the provinces and provincial services with regard to the Transvaal and the Cape. It has been stated that that basis of subsidy had its inequalities. It had its inequalities by virtue of the fact that certain assigned revenues did not work out exactly on the same basis, and certain taxes which were enforced in one province were not applied in the other provinces. In so far as that is concerned, there were inequalities, but the whole basis of the Jagger Commission was one of equality. In 1925 the hon. the Minister of Finance made a complete alteration in the basis of provincial subsidies, and he justified that by saying that he accepted the recommendations of the Baxter Commission. When he stated that the basis of his subsidy for the Transvaal as compared with the Cape had been allocated by taking various factors into consideration, I interrupted to the effect that the only factor was the so-called difference in the cost of living. The Minister said that that was one of the reasons. I would like the Minister to say exactly how he based the allocations if they were not based on the 17½ per cent. difference in the cost of living. I say confidently that there is no other factor whatever in introducing this difference in the per capita basis of financing the provinces, other than the cost of living, and the 17½ per cent. difference as between the Transvaal and the Cape.

Why don’t you read the report?

I have read it several times, and I ask the Minister to tell the country how he arrived at the difference in the subsidies. The difference between £16 7s. 6d. and £14 is 17½ per cent. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) pointed out that the difference in the cost of living is not 17½ per cent. against the Transvaal at the present time. There has never been any justification for this discrimination in favour of the Transvaal against the Cape. The Cape has by far the greater number of children attending school to-day, the Transvaal coming next, and the Free State and Natal last. Natal was getting £100,000 as a special subsidy, and £16 7s. 6d. per child. To suggest that the Cape and Natal were put on the basis of £14 per child, deceives nobody. There are less than 30,000 children in the Natal schools, and if there is the same proportionate increase in the attendance at school as that which has taken place, it will be another 10 years before Natal comes up to the 30,000 mark on which basis it is receiving a subsidy to-day. The £100,000 has been reduced to £75,000 on this year’s budget. Natal is getting £3 per child extra on this year’s budget. One does not know why the £30,000 was ever put in. Presumably it was because Sir Frederick de Waal objected to the basis of £14. With the £3 per head, in addition to the £16 7s. 6d., a sum of £19 7s. 6d. per head is received by Natal from central funds. The Orange Free State gets £15 8s. plus an amount for the first 30,000, which works out at about £16 per child. It was getting over £16 at one time. The £100,000 special grant works out at £3 per child, but to-day that special grant is £75,000, and that is equivalent to £2 10s. per child. Therefore, in the Free State the subsidy is brought up to £18 10s. per child. What justification is there for differentiation between Natal and the Cape? The services of the Cape Province have to be maintained. I suggest that if the Minister of Finance wants confirmation of the statements I have made, he should discuss this question with the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, who has contended ever since he was Administrator of the Cape Province that this discrimination against the Cape is most unfair. If there is to be any justification for a differentiation in the basis of the subsidies, it should be calculated upon the amount of service and the measure of efficiency that that service is expected to attain. We have over half a million coloured people in the Cape Province. Those people are on the border-line of the European standard of civilization. We expect them to maintain a decent standard of living. It is up to us to see that they have the facilities of hospitals and education, and we cannot give them these facilities. No other province is faced with a problem like that. To-day the position of the coloured people is that they cannot get the advantage of hospital service and the full advantage of education, because the province cannot maintain the services in the way they should be maintained. The Minister of Mines and Industries can tell the Minister of Finance how easily he could apply all the money which would come from the central administration if the subsidies were calculated on an equal basis. We do not mind whether the subsidy is going to be £14 or £16 7s. 6d., provided each of the administrations will have to bear their taxation equally. What is the effect of this particular discrimination? It means that out of the pockets of the taxpayer, whose funds are going into consolidated revenue—

If that is your basis, you are very well off.

I say unhesitatingly, and the Minister of Mines agrees with me, that it is impossible to assume the obligations which the Act of Union has put on him. They have never given educational facilities to the coloured people, as they ought to have done, nor have they given the hospital facilities, which they should have given. We take from their pockets exactly the same amount of taxation, relatively, as we take from any European in this country. No coloured man gets any concession in respect of the fact that he does not get the facilities afforded to the Europeans in this country. It is most unfair. The hon. Minister of Finance does not want me to condemn the application of the poll tax, but it is most unfair. I think the Minister knows that the provincial administration in the Cape has never met the obligations which the Act of Union has placed upon it. But what is the effect of this discrimination? We all of us pay certain monies into the consolidated revenue fund. The Cape Province gets £14 11s. 11d. I do not know whether that is based on attendance or enrolment. If it is based on enrolment it is very much less. Your service is determined not upon the basis which the administration gives us; we have to maintain the staff—to meet the demands of students —as shown by enrolment, not the amount that we get by subsidy, which is based on attendance. The Cape Province gets a subsidy from the central administration, and it also gets assigned revenue representing certain specific taxes, which are leviable on the taxpayers of the province. It also has the right to levy taxation within prescribed limits. The Cape Province is falling far short in its requirements to maintain the services. But whereas the Transvaal is getting £2 7s. 6d. from consolidated revenue funds, out of their revenue they have to maintain all services allocated under the Act of Union. If the Cape administration gets £2 7s. 6d. in respect of 147,000 children, it would amount to between £300,000 or £400,000. But out of the pockets of the Cape taxpayer, a certain percentage of that £2 7s. 6d. is given to the Transvaal. The taxpayers in the Cape Province are contributing to the increased subsidy which the Minister of Finance has allocated to the Transvaal Province. I say that is unfair. I do not think that the Minister of Finance will dispute that the Cape Province contributes by far a larger percentage to general revenue than any other province in the Union. The Minister of Finance has told us that the motion has been introduced for the sole purpose of propaganda at the forthcoming provincial council elections, but he knows that is not so, and it is not fair to anyone to say so—not fair to us and not fair to himself. The Minister of Mines will support what I say; so also will the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson) and the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). We have been told that if it is not due to the increased cost of living, it is due to the fact that the Cape is, like Natal, a coastal province, and, therefore, only entitled to £14. I have shown that Natal gets the full £16 7s. 6d., and is likely to get it for many years to come, so that is no justification whatever. The northern areas of the Cape Province represent in themselves inland areas as great, if not greater, than the whole of the Free State and most of the Transvaal. I do not think the Minister of Finance, if he looks at this criticism dispassionately, can dispute what I say. The Minister of Finance himself damned the Baxter report, and then when he came into power he altered his view of the recommendations of the report.

Of course, that makes all the difference.

Yes, that makes all the difference. Let us say: “I was prepared to buy off the agitation of the Cape Province, but I am now prepared to accept the recommendations of the Baxter report, because I am Minister of Finance.” If we were to revert to the old basis of subsidizing the provincial administrations, the Cape Province, as pointed out by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) or Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) would be in a very much better position to-day.

I challenge that.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) challenges that. I credit the hon. member for Zululand at any rate with being able to add up the expenses of the divisional councils, provincial administrations and school boards for the specific purpose of supplying to the provinces the essential services which are allocated to them. He has only to divide that expenditure by one-half and he will see that the subsidy which the Cape Province could get is larger than the subsidy which is paid to-day. There can be no question about that. After all it is simply an additional sum. It is no use looking at the expenditure of the Cape provincial administration and saying that the Cape provincial administration expenditure is between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 and dividing it by two and saying that the subsidy paid by the central fund to-day is in excess of what it should get. The whole basis of financing these services is entirely different from that of the other provinces in South Africa. We have the divisional councils which expend a considerable amount of money for the sole purpose of maintaining the services delegated to them under the Act of Union. I have no hesitation in repeating the arguments which the hon. member himself employed in 1923-’24 against this report, and telling him that the Cape Province is suffering a very, very grave injustice by this adverse discrimination. I appeal to him to give this matter, and it is a very serious matter, his consideration. It has been said that it has been introduced for the purpose of making political capital. I say that it has never been out of provincial politics, and it will certainly not be out of provincial politics at the next provincial elections. The Minister of Finance thinks that a certain amount of capital will be made out of it. If that is so, it must be out of a consideration of the fact that there is justice in the terms as embodied in the motion of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper). The only way to remedy the advantage which the Minister of Finance anticipates that the South African party or the Labour party is likely to get against the Nationalist party or the present Government for this adverse discrimination is to remove it.

If there is one thing that has convinced me that this motion is nothing else but an attempt to make political propaganda then it is the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. Another proof of that is that it is only ex-members of the Cape provincial council who have been promoted here by the South African party who have spoken on the motion. But when my hon. friends opposite get so excited about this matter we must go back to what the position was during the last five years of office of the respective parties. One of the hon. members became warm about the pension fund in the Cape Province. In what position did the South African party leave that fund? The fund was so neglected that the Administrator, who was appointed after the South African party Government, had to make special contributions to put the fund in a solvent state so that he could fulfil his obligations to the teachers. What did we see in 1923? The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Burton, boasted that he had knee-haltered education in the Cape Province, that he had seen the children were put out of the schools, and that the subsidy which had been granted on the £ for £ basis was reduced to 18s. per £. What was the position in other respects? The Nationalist party found that the Cape provincial administration with a deficit of £1,300,000, and in 1923 Sir Frederick de Waal proposed in the executive committee to levy extra taxation in the form of a house tax and a poll tax. There was to be economy on education and when the Minister of Finance had trouble in getting the necessary Bill through the House a telegram was sent that that resolution was not to be published. That was, however, the straw that broke the camel’s back and the South African party went to its destruction. There was, however, the accumulated deficit of £1,300,000 when the Nationalist party passed the new Financial Relations Act in consequence of which the Cape Province was to get a grant of £500,000 more than before. Instead of additional taxation a surplus resulted in the Cape Province, a surplus which has been maintained until to-day. I want, however, to point out that the deficit was there and it was capitalized by means of a loan granted by the central Government. Interest and redemption had to be paid, however, and this meant that the Cape Province had to pay about £200,000 annually as the result of the neglect of duty of the South African party. If it had not been necessary to pay that £200,000 the Cape Province would have been able to provide many more services. If it were not for the South African party, who are now making such a noise here, then it might have been possible for the Cape Province to open more schools, or to have supplied more free education. But in 1923 a great shout went up from the old Unionists that economy should take place in education, and that meant in the education of the farmer’s child on the countryside. They shouted for the adoption of the Baxter report, and one of the recommendations of that report was that if there was a deficit in a particular district then that district was to levy a land tax to make up the deficit. The report went still further. They further decided as the Omnibus Ordinance of 1923 showed that Administrator de Waal should appoint a special commission to investigate a uniform system for the payment of school fees. We threw it out, but the intention nevertheless was in 1923 to introduce a uniform system for school fees. That would have meant that in a place like Cradock every parent would have had to pay from £3 to £9 a year more in school fees: Middelburg would have to pay the same school fees as Cape Town, and are the educational facilities in the two places the same? As these additional burdens were to be imposed there had to be other parts of the country which were to be benefited and it is obvious that it was the large towns that would be benefited at the cost of the countryside.

Do you support the proposal?

I thought the hon. member understood Afrikaans. When I criticize hon. members opposite for wanting to mislead people with these mad motions then he probably expects that I am going to support them. He is wrong. I told the electors on the countryside, and I say it again here, to my hon. friends opposite, that in consequence of the wrong policy of the South African party, through which there was an accumulated deficit of £1,300,000, thousands of pounds had to be paid into the provincial treasury for quite a number of years to redeem that debt. We get nothing for it but on the contrary this Government has seen to it that 16,000 more children are in our industrial schools, and £200,000 is spent on them. This is not money that must be thrown away to pay the bad debts that the South African party made, but throughout care is taken that our children are prepared to make a good living later on. If that position is laid before the electors hon. members can go on, because the public will once more defeat them as has been the case in the past

I do not think the proposer and seconder of the amendment can be serious, because it would be a difficult matter to ascertain what each province contributes to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Further, the amendment would tear up the whole basis of the Baxter report, while it would be impossible for the provincial councils to know what amounts they were to receive for education from year to year. If they have to provide for education they must know what they get from year to year, and they must have a definite basis on which to calculate their expenditure. The hon. Minister in answer to the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) said we could not go back to the old £ for £ system. We do not ask for that; all I ask is that the system laid down in the Baxter report should be adopted, but that the inequality we suffer from under that report should be removed. We are not asking for a dole. All we want is equal treatment. We have met our responsibilities. The Minister says that the Cape is the only province which has no deficit. That may be so, but the reason is we have cut our coat according to our cloth, and why should we be penalized when we have done so, while they have not done so in other provinces? We have kept our expenditure within our revenue by, in many cases, starving development, not only in education, but in other lines, for which the provincial council is responsible. It may be that in other provinces they have starved development; but I do say we have made our finances balance, not only at the cost of education, but also of other services. It is quite true the Transvaal pays for free secondary education, but it could not do so if it received a subsidy only at the rate at which we in the Cape receive it. They do have to put their hands into their pockets, but not to the same extent as we in the Cape. We have to find 45 per cent. of our expenditure by direct taxation, and not a single other province taxes its citizens to that extent. The Minister says that uniformity never was the basis of financial assistance to the provinces, and that may be so; but does he maintain that uniformity would be unfair? If it is necessary to carry on the work which we must carry on in the interests of our citizens and children, I say uniformity is not unfair, and we are asking only for our rights when we ask for it. I do not want to take anything away from any of the other provinces. The special subsidy to the Orange Free State and Natal has been mentioned. I do not propose to take that away; no doubt there are special reasons that entitle them to that subsidy. But I do ask for uniformity in favour of the Cape to the extent that we shall receive the same educational subsidy. The Minister said that this system had lasted for five years. But it was unjust at the start, and I fail to see that an injustice can become justice by the mere lapse of time. If it was wrong, that we were forced to accept a lower subsidy than we should have had, it does not become right by mere process of time. I would like to point out that we have, in the House, a Minister of the Crown who has been Administrator of the Cape Province, and one would have thought that if there had been anything unfair or unreasonable in the request from this side of the House for fair treatment of the Cape Province, that the Minister of Mines would have been in a position to convince the House to that effect. He has not said a word about it. The Minister of Finance said that this motion was introduced for political purposes, and that is the only reply which he has been able to make to the arguments put forward from this side of the House. The only conclusion I can come to is that the case we have made in this House for a revision of the subsidy in favour of the Cape Province is absolutely unanswerable.