I move, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) Interim Report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission, 1920. [U.G. 35—’21.]
2. (2) Report of Tuberculosis Survey of the Union of South Africa by Peter Allen, M.D., Ch.B., D.P.H. [U.G. 18—’24.]
3. (3) Report upon the work of the Miners’ Phthisis Medical Bureau for the twelve months ending July 31st, 1923. [U.G. 32—’24.]
4. (4) Report of the Miners’ Phthisis Board for period 1st April, 1923, to 31st March, 1924. [U.G. 17—’25.]

Mr. A. I. E. DE VILLIERS seconded.

Agreed to.

Reports [Annexures Nos. 143—’22; 69—’24; 229—’24, and 373—’25, respectively], laid upon the Table.

Reports referred to Select Committee on Miners’ Phthisis Acts Consolidation Bill.

I move—

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

Agreed to.

I beg leave to move (in an amended form)—

Before I say anything on the Bill I would like to know from the Minister of Lands whether one of the provisions is to give indemnity for stock killed on account of the simultaneous dipping. I would like to reserve my chance to say a few words until I hear from him on this point.

This is only the introduction of the Bill and my friend will have full scope when it comes up for second reading. I do not know why he should object at this stage.

I understand one of the Clauses is to give the Government indemnity against cases brought by sheep farmers for losses they have incurred on account of simultaneous dipping. Surely the Government is not going to stand for this. It is the Party who has always in years gone by made the rafters of this House ring against the late Government for indemnity. I want to protest most strongly that the Government do not bring in such a provision. I should have thought the Government would rather facilitate and assist people to get compensation than take up this question in this way. I do not want to anticipate the debate or to go into it at any length, but I want at this stage to protest

A large number of sheep farmers in Natal have suffered very severe loss from the action of the Minister in imposing dipping at the wrong season. He was told at the time that it would be very inconvenient and would be also very detrimental. It has been stated and has not been contradicted that one prominent farmer lost 1,500 sheep out of 3,000.

By dipping?

Yes.

Wire-worm?

Nothing of the kind. We know what wire-worm is. In my own neighbourhood a sheep farmer in a small way lost 20 to 25 per cent. of his sheep.

Is that through dipping?

Yes.

I should have thought that the Minister before asking leave to introduce this Bill would have brought forward a motion to appoint a Commission to enquire into the losses which have occurred. All these losses have occurred under the supervision of the Stock Inspector, and the Natal and Transvaal farmers have lost fourfold. First of all, there is the loss entailed in purchasing the dip which was unnecessary; secondly, there is the actual loss of sheep through dipping them, especially when they had inches of wool on their backs; in the third place there is the wool that has come off wholesale from these sheep, and fourthly—I regret there are not sufficient farmers on that side of the House who would understand this point, but we on this side fully appreciate it—when the sheep are dipped with 1½ inches of wool in February and March it means that there is a consequent loss of condition resulting in an enormous loss in the lambing season. It is estimated by competent farmers that the loss will be 50 per cent. of lambs. There is no excuse for the Government and the Minister of Agriculture. They were warned long before the process was put into motion, by a deputation of experienced farmers from all over the country. They were also warned when the House met early this session. But in spite of this, the Minister of Agriculture, with obstinacy and ignorance, has pursued this drastic course, and thousands of pounds in losses have occurred. I consider it is the depth of meanness for the Minister to come forward now and ask the House to indemnify him and the Government for this gross ignorance.

I understand the hon. member has used the expression “depth of meanness” in regard to the Minister of Agriculture. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling.

The hon. member must withdraw the words.

I bow to your ruling, and withdraw the words. I say that there are extenuating circumstances for using these words, when we have gone through the experience we have. I say again that the Minister of Agriculture is far from generous in bringing forward a Bill to indemnify the Government from this great loss. I have a list of names of farmers in Natal who have lost sheep through dipping, under the supervision of the inspector. There is no need to detail them now; but I ask the Government to reconsider the matter and appoint a commission to go into the question, and to give the just compensation to which these farmers are entitled.

I cannot understand how anybody opposite can object to leave to introduce the Bill and I cannot understand why this discussion is taking place. It is news to me that one can lose 1,500 out of 3,000 sheep by dipping without very extraordinary circumstances. Probably the hon. member there knows nothing about dipping, but I wish to enter a strong protest against the words of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). He had to withdraw the word “meanness” but he also used the word “ignorance.” We shall have sufficient opportunity later to talk about the Bill, but how anybody can object to grant leave to introduce the Bill I cannot understand.

The Minister of Agriculture, after having committed a series of blunders since his accession to office, has now committed the crowning blunder of enforcing certain measures which have been proved to be ultra vires. I understand that full returns are not yet to hand, but. I believe he has killed 100,000 sheep by this compulsory dipping. We have been told the Pact party are the farmers’ party. A prominent apostate from the S.A. party, who gained some notoriety yesterday, has been telling people that—

Is the hon. member referring to a member of the other House?

Yes.

Then the hon. member must withdraw the word “apostate.”

I withdraw if Mr. Speaker thinks the expression unparliamentary. We all know to whom I am referring. Only yesterday he gave out that he has abandoned the S.A.P. because the Nationalist party is the party of the farmers, and here we have a ease where the Minister of Agriculture, who, after repeated warnings throughout the country, has enforced this simultaneous dipping and caused a great deal of loss to farmers, is now seeking to evade his obligation by passing an Indemnity Act. How does he justify that in fairness towards the man who has lost his stock? Why should the farmer be deprived of his common law remedy against the erring Minister? There are actions pending now in the courts, and I would like to know on what principle of equity or justice the Minister should get this indemnity against the farmers? We are told they are the farmers’ party, and yet they are seeking to evade their just obligations towards farming. I hope this Bill will be withdrawn.

I cannot see why hon. members opposite are so rebellious. They can make all their speeches at the second reading. What will be the position if the Government does not have the Bill passed? What about the regulations regarding East Coast fever which will also be ultra vires? Where shall we be then? Hon. members should think a little bit further ahead.

One is lost in admiration at the wonderful perspicacity, the wonderful intuitive insight into things, of hon. members on the other side. They say that all sorts of terrors are bound up in this innocent little motion. They say indemnity is in prospect for the Government for murderous onslaughts on the sheep of Natal. The wonder is that the hon. gentleman is alive to tell the tale. I have as much right to anticipate the possibility, nay the probability, of the inclusion in that Bill of double compensation for every sheep that was lost, as the hon. member has to anticipate that the Government will evade its legal and moral obligations. How does he know there is not going to be a commission appointed to go into the question—a commission which may be presided over by, say, the hon. member himself. There may be that in it. They may be going to raise his salary, so that he may go round and collect information as to the numbers of sheep destroyed by the wicked Government in dipping the sheep of the S.A.P. This is not the time to discuss merits or demerits, or lack of principles. The second reading is the time, when the hon. members have the printed Bills before them, and know precisely what the Minister is driving at.

Can it be wondered at that those of us who suffered any losses should not protest in the strongest possible terms against the introduction of a measure to validate what is illegal? It would have been better for the Government to have waited until the claims were filed before altering the law to take away the right of claiming compensation.

The Bill does not prevent you doing that.

When we found in Natal that the Minister was going to make dipping compulsory simultaneously, the people sent a deputation to Pretoria to protest, owing to the time of the year. The deputation informed the Minister that if the order were carried out the farmers would suffer heavily, but the Minister replied—

The question of compulsory dipping has been discussed in the House and disposed of. Hon. members must now discuss what is before the House.

I take it that what is before the House is to validate certain orders with regard to dipping. We are bound in honour to object to the introduction of any measure which would take away rights which have accrued owing to an illegal order.

I hope that hon. members on this side will not take the Opposition too seriously. We must remember that hon. members opposite have only been a short while in Opposition, when they have been 14 years in Opposition they will certainly alter a little and then we will take a little more notice of the Opposition. When there is anything before the House which they could oppose, their opposition is hopelessly weak. We saw enough yesterday. But now they are trying to oppose to-day when there is nothing before the House, and it seems to me that here also they are quite hopeless. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has talked about the terrible losses which have been suffered and has warned the Government. He may have done this as a kind of politician, but this is not what his sheep farmers did. At that time they met together and themselves went to the Government and said that the Minister must take no notice of the farmers, because they will themselves see to it that the simultaneous dip in their constituency would take place without their own supervision. But the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) does not know what is going on in Newcastle. He lives down in Greytown, and what went on in Newcastle he did not know nor does he know it yet to-day. The hon. member for Newcastle told us a little while ago that they are different in Natal to other people.

I should like to know if the hon. member has the right to discuss a statement made by me during this session in another debate?

The hon. member must not hark back to a previous discussion.

Yes, but the hon. member for Newcastle was too quick. He thinks that I was referring to his speech on horned cattle; but I refer to his speech that the people of Natal were different. He said: “we differ from other people.” We admit that. Since the younger members for Natal came to this House it has clearly appeared so. That is why they went so far as to say that Natal should secede. Happily the newspapers there think differently. They say that they have not sufficient capable men to lead Natal. We see it here every day, nor is it so strange but it seems that the sheep in Natal are also entirely different. We know that blue tongue exists amongst them this year, although perhaps the hon. member for Newcastle does not know it, and as we know loss of wool is also caused by blue tongue. I have only got up to tell hon. members on this side of the House not to regard the Opposition too seriously. Everything can be discussed when the Bill has once been introduced but if it is introduced I should also like to ask the hon. Minister whether the previous Government is to be indemnified for the simultaneous dipping which they fixed in my constituency, and if it will also cover the acts of the previous Government.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. J. B. Wessels) seems to think that this is a suitable time in which to indulge in his usual jibes at Natal. The whole question in a nutshell is this. On the 5th inst, the Minister of Agriculture was asked whether he would compensate people who had lost stock through his illegal compulsory order. He replied that legislation would be introduced to validate what had been done. The definite question was put to him again on the 12th inst., and he then replied that he would not compensate people who had lost sheep or been fined through his illegal order. Hence it is quite reasonable for us to record our protest against the Bill. Why should the farmers be singled out for this invidious treatment? Let me mention a parallel in a case of a commercial transaction. Suppose the late Minister of Finance had asked for an indemnity in connection with the complications which arose with the millers through his importation of wheat. Do hon. members suppose the House would have granted him leave to introduce an indemnity Bill? But because in this case the people concerned are farmers who are very largely unrepresented on the other side of this House a Bill is brought in this hurried and hasty manner to legislate them out of their rights. I think this is undoubtedly a Bill which hits below the belt, and we are called upon to register our protest against it, and that is what we are doing.

We are labouring under great difficulties. We don’t know what this Bill is about. One can, perhaps, understand the anxiety of those members on that side of the House, but if it had been a few hundred human beings who had been concerned, we could have understood.

Tell us about the widows and orphans now.

How can we discuss a Bill when we don’t know what it contains? In the past all those hon. members have always been in favour of indemnity bills. Hon. members always regarded that things done by the Government in good faith should be indemnified. If they were right then, they are right now, if the Minister has acted in good faith, and we believe that he did act in good faith. As in the past we ought to say that we are now in favour of indemnifying the Minister. Some of them put more value on the lives of a few sheep than on human beings.

I am sincerely surprised at hon. members over there who pose to be representatives of farmers, associating themselves with members on the cross benches who are continually fighting anything which is in the interests of the farmers. Yesterday afternoon, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) the Minister explained that it was his intention, in this particular case, to introduce a Bill asking for an indemnity for what the Minister has done. It was, therefore, indicated what was in this Bill. As a Cape member I have to join in this protest this afternoon, because we have been warned by the Minister that he is coming to the Cape. We have heard from the Natal members of the heavy loss they have sustained from the dipping which has taken place. The Minister, when he took office, came forward and disorganized the Department of the Sheep Division to such an extent that scab became on the increase, with the result that he hastened the measure, the unfortunate result of which we have to-day. I fear what has taken place in Natal and the Transvaal will take place in the Cape very soon.

I want again on this side as a member of the Cape Province to protest against the words of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). I should like to know from the progressive farmers of the Cape Province whether he expresses their views.

Certainly.

We shall see whether the farmers say so when he appears before them. The farmers in the Cape Province welcome the attempt of the Minister of Agriculture to eradicate scab. He wants to make political capital out of this matter, and I do not think that the progressive farmers in his district agree with him.

I challenge you to come and hold a meeting there.

I accept that. If the hon. member will convene a meeting I will meet him on this point. We will then see what the farmer thinks about it. The heavy expenditure on scab, which already amounts to millions, must be ended, and we must eradicate it. The hon. member was silent about what the attorneys on his side said. They know very little about the matter.

More than you.

If the hon. member knows something about farming he will know that it is foolish to say that dipping can cause a loss of 1,500 out of 3,000 sheep. The other attorney-farmer friend, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that 100,000 sheep had died. If it is the case that these heavy losses were suffered in Newcastle, then the farmers there know nothing about dipping. No, I do not know of any Government in the country which has the farmers’ interests so much at heart as this Government. We have many more farmers on this side of the House than there are opposite. It has again been illustrated to-day that one attorney after the other has got up on the opposite side and taken part in the debate. Sheep farmers such as the hon. members for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) and the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) have not talked about the matter, and I would advise the Opposition to rather allow the farmers to talk about such matters.

As representing a Natal constituency, I feel I must join in this chorus of protest against this attempt by the Minister to cover up his misdeeds in this way. There have been a good many gibes thrown at Natal this afternoon, because we have attempted to stand up for our rights. I would like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) concerning the losses and the causes. It is idle to talk about blue tongue and wire worm being the cause of the heavy loss sustained. There is no question, the country has suffered heavy losses indeed in consequence of the carrying out of the simultaneous dipping policy of the Minister. My own district sent a deputation to the Minister to inform him that the time was unseasonable to carry out this order, but the deputation received very little sympathy, and was told to go back and carry out the order, which they did. Speaking for my own constituency. I certainly protest against the Minister attempting now to shield himself behind this House in regard to the order which he issued. As I said just now, whenever we from Natal attempt to stand up for our rights, we are met with nothing but gibes and taunts from the other side of the House. I think, in this instance. I know the reason why. It was left to Natal to put the Minister on the right path, it was left to Natal to teach the Minister his business, and, naturally, hon. members opposite feel very sore that Natal should take the lead and show the Minister what a dismal failure he has made of this compulsory dipping. I do hope that the suggestion of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) will be adopted and that a commission will be appointed to enquire into the heavy losses which have been sustained. If it is the intention of the Government to appoint such a commission, why not say so now? If it is not the intention, then withdraw the Bill and leave it to those who have suffered loss to adopt any legal remedy they may have to recover compensation.

If any new regulation had been issued by the Minister of Agriculture I should have remained silent. As the House knows I was against simultaneous dipping. I went to Pretoria to see the Minister in connection with this matter. It is not necessary to give my reasons against simultaneous dipping. But what strikes me as so strange is that under the precisely the same regulations the former Minister of Agriculture also prescribed simultaneous dipping.

But at a good time.

I am just wondering whether if damage had been suffered the hon. members opposite would have taken up the same attitude. Why did they not then plead for indemnification?

It was not necessary.

That is a very weak argument. We have had a bad year in consequence of all the rain. But what is so wonderful is that when we were in Pretoria there was also a strong deputation from Natal but they would not join up with us to protest. As has been already said I always objected to simultaneous dipping.

Does the hon. member think that the Minister chose a suitable time?

I was opposed, and am still opposed, but what I cannot understand is that hon. members opposite sat still when the former Minister proclaimed simultaneous dipping under which, e.g., Harrismith suffered. Natal previously said that the whole of Natal agreed with this measure and when I saw the Minister he also said that the whole of Natal was in favour of it. But of course the hon. Minister could not forsee that we should have so much rain. We should remember that we have had a very bad year.

I am surprised at the remarks of the previous speaker and of the other speakers. What is so peculiar is that the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) makes out that he has a monopoly of all the knowledge of farming. Was not he a school master who later on took up farming? There are some of us here who have been farmers from our mother’s knee. Why is this Bill introduced? Is there not something that is feared? My hon. friend for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has said that the previous Minister of Agriculture issued the same regulations, but he took the season into consideration.

The time was the same.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has pointed out that we have had much rain and that it was not a year for simultaneous dipping. I think that we should allow the Bill to be introduced so that we could know what it contains. The Minister’s ears will burn when he hears how many sheep have been lost. The position of the sheep farmer is as disastrous as it has ever been.

The hon. members opposite wish to make it appear as if they are now the farmers’ party. But if one has to declare so often that he is a farmer or an Afrikander then I get suspicious. Did not the farmers put us on the Government benches? I am sorry however that the Natal members come here to plead for scab. We also strongly opposed simultaneous dipping in the first instance, but to-day we regret this and I think that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and other hon. members should not now say anything more in favour of scab. They ought to help to eradicate scab. Of course the Minister could not forsee that there would be so much rain. Our sheep at Riversdale do not require any more dipping.

That is why the hon. member is speaking.

If Natal were to keep its sheep clean there would also be no necessity for dipping there. We on this side will never bring in a Bill which is unfair to the farmers and we will give an account to the country side.

The hon. members for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) have said that this side of the House is opposed to dipping. I have seen the injustice which has been done to the public during the past 30 years. Farmers got dip gratis. It was carried gratis over the railways and inspectors were appointed by the State. Our raisin farmers made no objection to this We never yet reproached the sheep farmers although we in the Western Province had to pay for most things ourselves. We are not against dipping but one can dip sheep without killing them. There must have been something wrong. It must have been wrong dip or it must have been a wrong time. The great thing we have fought against was that the sheep inspectors should be so suddenly changed. The Minister has made blunders and if a Bill is introduced it should rather be to compensate the people.

I am sorry that such a long discussion has taken place about the innocent motion which I am making on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.

Where is the Minister of Agriculture.

He is sick and in bed. I understand that the whole trouble has been caused by the Natal court declaring simultaneous dipping ultra vires. It is the same regulation on which the previous Government acted dozens of times, but after the judgment of the court the Government must, naturally, put the matter right. The department of agriculture further informs me that any claim to compensation for which the Government is responsible is not touched by this Bill. If hon. members would only wait until they see the Bill itself then they can make their objections when the Minister is here himself and the second reading is proposed. I should like to advise the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) to be a little more careful in his remarks. He said that scab was increasing notwithstanding the measures taken by the department. I will just ask him to make that statement on the second reading when the Minister himself is here. The hon. friend will then be informed that his statement is void of all truth. The regulations were drawn up in 1914 by the previous Government with the approval of the legal advisers. Action has always been taken under those regulations but after the judgment of the court the Minister is just coming here to give authority to the regulation.

But is there then no indemnity clause in the Bill?

I am in the difficult position of not having gone into the matter, but I am informed by the department that the Bill does not touch losses for which the Government is responsible by legislation. Compensation can be demanded notwithstanding this Bill. All that the Minister wishes is that the regulations which were issued shall be validated. Accept for instance that the hon. Minister actually gets indemnity under this Bill then hon. members have a full opportunity to make their objections when the Bill comes up. The discussion to-day should really have been at the second reading and it is unnecessary at this juncture, especially as the Minister is not here. I think it is unfair to attack the Minister when he is not here. I hope hon. members will now make no further objections.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on Friday.

In regard to recommendation No. 21, I move—

I desire to do this, not because I do not agree with the terms of the sale or anything else about it, but because since the committee had this matter before it (of which I am a member), I have had an opportunity of visiting the locality concerned, and I find, from residents there, that there is a tremendous amount of nervousness as to the future of the water supply of one or two hamlets in the vicinity. The water supply in that district rises in the mountains, where it is under this clause proposed to sell to the gentleman concerned, and I think it is a dangerous thing to put the water-supply into the hands of private persons. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the case, but I have heard sufficient to make me consider that it would be well if we were to give this matter further consideration before ratifying the agreement.

I am sorry my hon. friend should have made that recommendation, because when this matter was before the committee, we went into all the points mentioned by him. As he knows, some of the water rises right under the krantzes; but lower-down runs through the land of Mr. Jagger; therefore I do not see how any person living lower down would have his water rights interfered with. If he has any right to the water, then the ordinary Irrigation Act protects him quite sufficiently, and it is not necessary for us to take precautions. There is no difficulty. A few years back we granted a similar piece of land adjoining to Lady Phillips. There, of course, the same conditions applied. I do not think it would be right, in this connection, that the committee, after having gone into this matter and postponed it for a week to get information from the people concerned and the divisional council, and after the divisional council have stated that they have no objection, that we should now refer it back to the committee. It can only mean that they will say we are not going to give it. I think that would be an injustice, and as far as the water rights are concerned, these are fully protected. I hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion and let the report go through.

I am sorry I cannot accede to the request of the Minister. This is just one of those cases which show how necessary it is for those on Select Committees, and particularly on the Select Committee on Crown Lands, to go and see what they are dealing with. One gets an entirely different perspective when sitting in the calm atmosphere of the committee room, from what one obtains when one makes a personal inspection on the spot. I was concerned in helping to grant the sale of land to Lady Phillips, and I did so without demur because representations were made that everything in the garden was lovely. We were called upon to make a decision without sufficient evidence. Where a question of public rights, and especially of public water supply, are concerned, we should be remarkably careful how we deal with them. I am asking that the matter be referred back to the committee for reconsideration, and then I would suggest that the committee be requested to inspect the land. I have been out there not for this purpose, but to visit some friends, who incidentally referred to the fact that a certain piece of land was going to be sold to a certain gentleman. They remarked to me—

Is there not something in the irrigation law which says that a stream rising on a man’s farm is his?

Yes.

The persons who have farms on the banks of the river rising in this kopje have riparian rights. We have not enquired sufficiently into the question. If there is nothing in the objection, then the Minister and the committee should have no objection to the matter being re-enquired into. But if there is some danger to the public, there is all the more reason for sending the recommendation back. If I am not convinced that everything is safe, am I not right in asking that the matter should go back to the committee? My object is not to prevent the sale, but to safeguard the people and to re-examine witnesses in view of the information given to me.

I am sorry that a member of the Lands Committee should have raised the matter, which, to my mind, casts a reflection on the work of that committee. One would think that we had not considered the matter, or had given it very little consideration.

I was one of them.

We went very fully into this question, so much so that the matter stood over for a year. We have had the views of the Land Board and all manner of expert advice on the matter. The hon. member gives no reason why, how and where the water rights can be endangered. Those water rights will remain as they are, and there will be absolutely no difference. No amount of adjournment will alter the fact that this matter can in no way vary or affect existing water rights. To refer the subject back on this ground is valueless.

If the hon. member (Mr. Madeley) looks at the report of the Select Committee, he will find that the Government safeguards the position of owners as far as water is concerned.

I don’t think it is quite fair for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) to state that the raising of the question is a reflection on the Select Committee. Rather, I think, it shows the care exercised by that committee. It is well that the committee of the whole House should know the difficulties experienced by the Select Committee when it dealt with this subject. When the Crown Lands Committee first had this matter put before it, it was stated that the applicant wished to take in a certain amount of useless mountain which adjoined his farm, as stray cattle were liable to come in contact with stock on Mr. Jagger’s farm. However, the extension of the boundary by the addition of this land does not get over the difficulty. Then it was pointed out to the committee that the bulk of the water supply to the surrounding districts rose on that mountain. If that is so, the committee should approach this subject in a very careful way. I submit that the farm “Lourensford” is not in any urgent hurry about getting this extra piece of land, which everybody admits is useless for grazing or any other purpose. If there is any doubt in connection with the matter, I cannot see that any harm will be done by leaving it over. I think it ought to be left over. Nobody will lose anything by it, and perhaps a good deal will be gained by delaying it.

I am no longer on the committee for Crown Lands, but when this matter was dealt with I was a member. When the application came before the committee the first time it was as a matter of fact on my motion that the matter was referred to the divisional council of Stellenbosch. We felt that it was not right to transfer a piece of mountainous ground to anybody without consulting the divisional council. Subsequently the divisional council replied that it saw no objection to the transfer of the ground, and therefore the committee passed it because the divisional council is there for the purpose of protecting the public of Stellenbosch, but I objected at the time at the first meeting. I mentioned that, according to the diagram, the Lourens River runs over the ground and that the water rights of riparian occupiers living lower down would be interfered with. The owner of Louwrensford, who now possesses a part of the water rights, would then obtain the whole of them. I was then told that that was not the case. But to make doubly certain, I would move, as an amendment—

With that I think the whole difficulty disappears.

I have no objection to this amendment because in reality it does not mean anything at all, because the Irrigation Act fully and completely protects any owner living below Mr. Jagger’s farm. It is true what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said, that if a fountain rises on your farm it belongs to you, but if the water from it has been used for more than 30 years by another person, then you lose this right. All this water runs into the river Lourens which runs through Mr. Jagger’s land, but on account of it being a permanent river it is a public stream, and if the water had not been used for 30 years, the lower owners would still have the right under the Irrigation Act. Therefore the amendment from the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) I can accept because it does not alter the case at all. Provided the water rights of owners along the Lourens river are not affected I will accept it. It will be the case whether it is accepted or not.

The amendment does not the position one whit. That is not my object. The present riparian owners have their rights protected, but I am thinking of the full water supply for drinking and domestic purposes for any town that might subsequently exist there—the future water supply of any community. There is already a sort of hamlet whose water supply would have to be decided by Mr. Jagger if you pass this. Does my hon. friend see there is no harm going to be done, the whole of this gentleman’s existence does not depend upon our immediately granting this land. Even if we delay a fortnight, a session or a year, his position will not be jeopardized, but by doing something in a hurry we might jeopardize a whole community of souls. Why will the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) impart into these discussions these suggestive remarks. I think he would have more influence if he would try and treat these matters on their merits. There is nothing personal about this. What I want the Committee to do is merely to pause and think a little before deciding hastily, before giving 685 morgen, no flea-bite, a tremendous area of ground, and we don’t know even now whether any other water supplies are being jeopardized. The configuration of the mountain range there is such that any amount of water courses may be receiving their sources in those mountain peaks. We, therefore, might pause and let the Committee go more deeply into it. In the light of information I have received there seems to be a good case made out for further delay. I don’t want the Committee to reject it. I acquiesced in the decision of the Committee, but we should be foolish in the light of further information if we don’t go into the matter again. I press my motion to refer it back to the Committee for further consideration and report.

I quite agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie). I am acquainted with the matter because we had a similar instance in my constituency. Pieces of mountainous ground were sold, and the owners cut off the water which was used by persons on the other side. They could get no redress, and the ground had to be bought back at a high price. Subsequently just similar ground was sold and no difficulty arose because there was a similar saving clause in it.

I speak as a member of the divisional council of Stellenbosch. We went fully into the matter, and I have nothing against the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie), because it may possibly be necessary later. The poor devil who goes to live there will not be able to exist. His cattle will die from the sour grass and the east wind will blow away what is left. I think his object in making the purchase is to prohibit veld burning and so to conserve the water. I hope, therefore, that the hon. member for Benoni will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Madeley’s motion put, and the committee divided:

Ayes—15.

Allen, J.

Bergh, P. A.

Brits, G. P.

Christie, J.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reyburn, G.

Stals, A. J.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Madeley, W. B.

Noes—76.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé. A. S.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rood, W. H.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt. T.

Werth. A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Mr. Conradie’s motion put and agreed to.

Paragraph (21), as amended, put and agreed to.

Paragraphs (22) to (26) put and agreed to.

On paragraph (27),

Here is a case where a company has acquired some land from the Crown but not the mineral rights, which were reserved by the Crown. They floated a company, and they now come to the Government to give them mineral rights because otherwise they cannot pass transfer to the people who have bought land from them. The good name of South Africa has been dragged through the mud by a certain type of company promoters, by land sharks. Now we are asked to give the mineral rights so that they can give transfer, which they could not give otherwise. They have misrepresented these lands. I move—

I hope the committee will agree to the amendment. I think it is a most important matter and one which the committee should consider very carefully before they take the step now proposed in this recommendation. This is a position where a company is floated with the great bulk of its sales taking place in London, where you pay your money for a certain number of years and the company undertakes to plant so many trees each year, and at the end of live or ten years they hand over the farm to the buyer. I think the committee knows that proposition; it has been extensively advertised. The advertisements present a beautiful picture of a lovely orange farm. This company having acquired this land and having gone into the English market and sold a great many of these small farms, it now transpires that they have sold what they did not possess, namely, the mineral rights. It is quite true that the mineral department have reported that as far as they are concerned they are satisfied there are no minerals on this particular land, but, as you know, a good deal of platinum has been found all around the Pietersburg district. I do not impute it to this particular company, but what I am concerned with is that there is quite a possibility that this company, having acquired mineral rights from the Government, can draw up advertisements stating that they have obtained these rights, and thus lead people to believe that there are minerals there. There is nothing to prevent this or any other company doing something in this direction and so further prejudice the good name of South Africa. Look at it from the ordinary business point of view. If you sold someone something you had not got, would you go squealing to the Government to make it possible for you to carry out a contract which you could not carry out without the assistance of this House? No. I think you would rather go to the buyer and explain that a mistake had been made, and offer either to repay some of the money received or make some other amicable arrangement. That is what any ordinary commercial man would do. Here is a position entirely different. I understand from what I can gather that up to the present no buyer has pressed the company for the mineral rights. I am quite Certain that if the company would go to the buyers they could come to some arrangement—after all, they have bought a fruit farm, not a mine—whereby the buyers would be quite content to buy this land without the mineral rights. If, however, we grant this extra concession, I can foresee something that may be very detrimental to our good name. As I say, this farm is in a place where many mines are developing just now, where a good deal of platinum discoveries are reported to have been made, and I am very nervous of this company using the land for purposes other than those intended by the Lands Committee.

I hope the Minister will not agree to this amendment, which, after the careful consideration in the Committee, is quite unnecessary. This company owns two farms, on which they have established one of the most progressive and successful citrus propositions in South Africa. I hold no brief for them; but they really have created a very valuable asset in South Africa. On one farm they have full mineral rights, but on the other farm they gave out certain building lots. The Transvaal Townships Board had ordered them to cut this small piece of land into building lots; so they had no option in the matter, and this land was sold unconditionally as building lots. It never struck the company to go into the question of the mineral rights. They were sold simply as residential sites. A man buying an ref in a town does not worry about mineral rights, and so it is comprehensible how the mistake occurred. They are not asking for the mineral rights on the rest of the land, which is commonage. They are asking to be allowed to rectify a formal error. If we refuse to do this, we will be unnecessarily harassing and vexatious—it would be simply “cussedness” on our part if we did not grant their petition. We have safeguarded the position by embodying a clause in the resolution that the company shall not acquire these mineral rights, and sell them at a higher price to those to whom they have sold the lots. They have sold 25 residential lots unconditionally; in other words, with mineral rights, but they do not possess the mineral rights. There is no case of fraud about it. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) casting aspersions about land companies. There have been abuses, which we all regret, but when he talks of the Sundays River Company as a swindle, he is going too far. The Sundays River Bill has already been passed by this House, and the principle of the Sundays River Bill is to repair an oversight on the part of the previous company. But when the Bill was before the House, no one suggested that it was a swindle. I have never doubted the bona fides of the Sundays River Company in selling the land as riparian when it was not riparian. Where there is a legitimate case where a company has defrauded, it is another matter; but for the hon. member to generalize in the way he has is not fair. The company did not try to swindle anyone. They have been unfortunate, and have paid through the nose for their mistakes. This case is, in principle, on all fours with the principle of which this house approved in the Sundays River Bill. If we do not approve, the company will be liable to actions for damages by the people to whom they sold the land, and we will have, out of pure cussedness, put the company into this position. This company has done a valuable piece of Pioneering in Pietersburg, and I would be sorry to see this House take up an attitude on this matter. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. The land referred to is very small—only a fragment of the actual farm. The company owns the whole farm. They are not asking for the mineral rights to be restored on the whole farm, but on a few residential plots, and I hope the Minister will not give way to this amendment, and that the House will agree to the proposal as it stands.

The Minister is in the very happy position of having the support of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and of others who are supposed to be in opposition.

We thought we could rely on our own committee members to be loyal to their own recommendation.

Some of the arguments that have been employed by the hon. member who has just spoken (Col. D. Reitz) are rather specious, and, may I say, do not apply. He says this is on all fours with the Sundays River position. It is nothing of the sort. That company went insolvent, and the State took over their obligations, and it is now State land we are concerned with rectifying former mistakes. The attitude we took up in regard to Sundays River matter was that the State cannot allow the mistakes of some of its predecessors to prejudice the settlers on State land. We have decided, as a House, to rectify these mistakes, because now they become the State’s mistakes, and we take over the responsibility of administering that land. Therefore, it is not on all fours with the case before us. Please understand what this recommendation asks. It asks that the owners of certain land—a private land company—who are selling portions of that land to the public, and who have sold knowing all the time that they did not possess the mineral rights—they may have forgotten or may not have forgotten that they did not possess the mineral rights when selling—and now when the people to whom they have sold the land are asking for everything they bought, and the company cannot give it, the company comes to the House and asks for the sale, at a nominal figure, of the mineral rights, so that they can complete their contracts. It may be perfectly bona fide, and I have no objection to repairing a bona fide mistake in the case of actual sales, but I am not going to acquiesce in handing over the mineral rights for the portion of the farm which has not yet been sold. We are asked to agree that mineral rights should go with the land that is to be sold in the future, and in that case we shall be handing over an asset to the company which it may exploit. Most of the plots were sold to people overseas who had to rely—as a good many of the Sundays River settlers had to rely—on glowing literature. Fancy the prospectus that would be issued if the company could advertise in Europe that they had mineral rights, and they could point to the boom in platinum which they could state had been discovered in the near vicinity.

No platinum has been discovered anywhere near this place.

Has the Minister not sufficient experience to realize that this is exactly what they would do? The gentleman who is responsible for this is very astute; immediately up will go the price of the land. What will people overseas know about how far away platinum has been discovered? In the Select Committee I demanded that an actual deed of sale should be placed before us, but it was not produced. Can you agree that a Select Committee should consent to a grant of certain rights when an essential document is not forthcoming? Let us give him the mineral rights for the plots he has already sold, but I oppose giving him the mineral rights over the whole of the land.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has made a kind of reproach of it that hon. members of the Opposition are here again supporting. It is nothing strange that when a matter has been before a Select Committee members who serve on it should support their own opinions. I wish to point out that the company which asks permission to sell the mineral rights of certain portions of ground has done very good work. The area, which was a wild malaria region, was changed by their work, and at the moment 210.000 orange trees are growing there, most of them already bearing. The Transvaal Village Board (a body which has been instituted in the Transvaal) has said that the company can sell ground, but can only give the purchasers building plots in certain places. If they sell building plots, then the Government always retains the mineral fights. Now the people on the orange plantations have bought building plots. I think the company has bought 155 morgen from us and has cut up a little less than half in building plots. As for the mineral rights, the people in Europe do not know the position. If the company were to sell the ground without mineral rights and under a servitude, then it would be a great stumbling block to it. Therefore the company came to the Government to ask whether something could not be done. Now the department of mines has stated that no minerals exist, and to show its bona fides further, the company only ask to be met in respect of the building plots. In respect of other portions of ground that have been sold it will not apply, and there the State will retain the mineral rights, for, as the chairman of the company has stated, they want to have nothing to do with minerals. This is the whole position dealt with by the committee on Crown Lands, and the committee felt that the company had done great work for developing the country and that as no minerals exist there can be no objection to the request, and that we should not deliberately put difficulties in their way. We refused a few years ago because the matter had then not yet been properly investigated, but now the committee thinks the application should not be refused.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is not in the House. He said it was a pity that members of the Select Committee were not loyal to the recommendations of the Select Committee. I voted against it in the Select Committee. He said that it was a similar case to that of the Sundays River. He must remember that Mr. Kanthack went to England on leave and while he was there a great fuss was made over bogus land companies. He held three meetings and said that everything was all right with the Sunday River company. We had, however, later to rectify their mistake and the people in England were deceived. Here we have another case where the company has sold plots for £50 that were worth nothing. They knew well enough that they did not possess the mineral rights, they however sold the ground with the mineral rights and now they come to us to do their dirty work. I refuse to allow the good name of South Africa to be dragged through the mud. The man at the head of the company is a clever man. If the mineral rights are not granted the people can, nevertheless, build on the plots.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) is always making similar discoveries. The company has tried to push the country ahead and after the clear explanation of the hon. Minister of Lands I cannot understand how hon. members can still make objections. Ten shillings per plot is being paid which is not a insignificant amount. But the hon. member for Namaqualand always discovers that one or another company is defrauding the country.

It is often the case.

Yes, the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) also. I wonder what South Africa would have been worth without all the companies that came to assist in the development of the country. I have not been there personally but I know the district, and the Minister of Lands has correctly stated that the company has done a great work and has developed a desert part. What has the hon. member for Namaqualand done to develop the country?

He sowed wheat.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) must not be personal.

The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) also is very loquacious.

If the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is not personal what can he be then?

What I cannot understand is that hon. members opposite agree with members on the cross benches who are always out to attack property owners. No, this matter appears to me quite in order. It has been investigated by the committee out the hon. member for Namaqualand who always discovers things, must again say something and that notwithstanding the department of mines has already said that there are no mineral rights. There is perhaps a little mica under the ground but even then the price of 10s. per plot is good enough. I go so far as to say that I am sorry that the Government has not granted the mineral rights to all the ground which the company has sold. The company has done very good work, and I hope the majority of the House will support the hon. the Minister. The companies must not always be suspected of fraud. They have helped much with the money they have invested in the country to develop the country. There are, moreover, many companies which have lost large sums of money.

It is really very nice of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) to keep repeating that I am discovering things. He knows of all the harm that the former Government did with its settlements and now we must rectify the dirty work and pay for it. I can well understand that he does not want me to make discoveries. There are still unsold plots, and we are now requested to grant the mineral rights thereof as well. I have never yet heard that a person requires mineral rights to be able to build a house on a plot. The company knew that it did not possess the mineral rights to the ground. It sold the ground, including the mineral rights, and if we approve of it then we are encouraging that sort of thing. It is for this reason that I don’t want to assist them and that I oppose.

Paragraph (27) put and agreed to.

Paragraphs (28) to (60) put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported, considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I think that the Minister was quite right when he said, in moving the second reading of this Bill, that the country at the present time has not made up its mind that the provincial system is impossible, and that, therefore, he had gone on the assumption that we must find some means of continuing it. It is true that there has been in the Cape Province—and this effect has been more apparent in the Cape Province than any other that I know—great irritation at the methods of taxation which have been employed, and I see that in the Baxter report even the Administrator (Sir Frederic de Waal) admits that the taxation is not a desirable form of taxation. He states that in the evidence which he gave before the commission. He is talking there about the turnover tax, and he says that he had taken the idea over from the Transvaal. He adds—

It is taxation methods of that sort which have made the provincial system unpopular in the Cape Province and also the somewhat dictatorial methods of the Administrator, who seemed largely to hypnotize the members of his council. But those are, after all, mere personal matters; they do not affect the system, and it has been recognized in the Cape that good work has been done by provincial councils, and that has been recognized perhaps even more in the parts that are away from the centre of government. In the Eastern Province we have had consideration, we have had facilities that we never had before, and we recognize that this good work has been done, and we would not like any of these provincial councils to be abolished unless we were quite assured of a better form of local government being given to us, and we have not yet seen in any proposal that has been put forward anything that commends itself to us more than the provincial council system, except so far as this is concerned, that we do think that the Cape Province is too large for one council and that it should be split up into at least two councils, if not three. The only mitigation of that has been the fact that the Administrator was himself an Eastern Province man, knowing something of the conditions there, and that we understand another Eastern Province man is to be appointed as Administrator. I say that it is not at all clear that the Cape Province, as a whole, would be in favour of the entire abolition of provincial councils. The Minister gave us a very clear statement of what the position was, and of what his intentions were with regard to the Bill, but to my mind his statement was marred by his making quite unnecessary reflections upon previous Governments. He stated that, reform was needed, and that the position last year, as a result of the action of the previous Government, was a most serious one, and something had to be done. Then he goes on to talk about politics being introduced into provincial councils. The Minister spoke of tinkering, and he evidently strongly objected to that; but what does he immediately proceed to do? He gets out his hammer, and tinkers: that is what he has done in this Bill. I admit it is good work, but there is still a continuation of the tinkering that has gone on. Materials he has used have all been drawn from South African party sources. I can see in this Bill nothing whatever that emanates from the Minister himself. The Bill consists, more or less, of a judicious application of the recommendations by the 1916 and 1920 commissions. There is nothing of his own, and it was hardly fair for him to talk in the way he did about what the previous Government have done under these circumstances. A much more fair way to put the position would have been this, that we all know the whole matter of provincial council government was experimental. It was recognized at, the time by the convention that this was so, and we have all been naturally somewhat groping after an improvement in the system. It had to be gradually evolved, and what light had been shed in this groping has come from South African party men. We have all been seeking for some system that would avoid congestion, that would avoid undue bureaucracy, and at the same time would encourage local self Government. It is rather interesting, in connection with that, to see the difference of opinion held in regard to economy of central Government The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that centralization of Government always meant want of economy. It interested me to find that the Baxter Commission, in its report, seemed to take the opposite view. In referring to the cost of education in Natal, they say that the low cost in Natal is partly due to the fact that the whole administration is in the hands of the central office. There is another point in the statement of the Minister in which he seemed to me to be contradictory. He complained of the restrictions that had been put upon the provincial Government, and said that had led to want of efficiency. He said that had been the result of the limitation of the rights of the provinces to levy taxes, and he condemned the previous Government as having made such limitations; and yet, later on he spoke of the position which obtained hitherto and he claimed that the new Bill would lessen the “illimitable field of direct taxation by the provinces.” He cannot consistently, in the same speech, complain of what is being done in the way of restricting taxation by the provinces, and still talk about an illimitable field of direct taxation. Later on, in claiming what are the merits of the Bill, he claims that the outstanding feature was to place the subsidy on a more scientific and satisfactory footing, and while there was severe limitations of the taxing powers, it left some selection with regard to sources of taxation. Although he complained of a want of control by the late Government and previous Governments of the powers of provincial councils, he referred to the provincial councils as indulging in “expensive idiosyncracies.” What does he mean? If they were so limited how were they able to so indulge? It was to get rid of this tendency that the previous Government took the step they did. That, I think, was the position. With these remarks I would say that I think the claims of the Minister on behalf of his Bill are justified, in that it does introduce a more scientific basis for giving a subsidy each year, and also that it does go in some direction towards a more effective control to be exercised in limiting powers of taxation. It does not go so far as some of us would like, because the essential thing to me is being able to get control. When we come to examine the schedule that the Minister has made to his Bill, we see that he has adopted some of the recommendations of the Baxter Commission; others he has left entirely alone. The details would be better dealt with in committee, but I would like to refer to one or two items in the Bill. With regard to section 2, where the subsidies are laid down, the Minister said with regard to reduction of the scholars, that the numbers were taken upon attendance, and not upon enrolment. It is a matter that can be dealt with more fully in committee. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) strongly supported attendance as against enrolment, because he said enrolment might lead to fraud, but there is another point of view. I have had strong representations made to me to the effect that when you take attendance it makes no provision for such things as weather and epidemics, which, unfortunately, will happen.

It would probably increase the subsidy by over £100,000.

That is hardly the point. Surely the point is what is a fair thing to do in the matter. I accept the Minister’s figure; but we do have such things as epidemics, when all provision has to be made and the teachers have to be supplied. But it would affect the attendance, and therefore the subsidy would be reduced. It seems hardly to be fair. I just mention the matter to show that there is a difference of opinion on this point. In regard to section 3, in connection with contributions to native education, I wish to know how the matter is arrived at. Is it on the basis of the present expenditure. The Cape gets £240,000. We are not told the basis of it. In regard to the schedule, there the Minister has accepted some of the Baxter Commission’s recommendations. Others he has left entirely alone. He retains the double taxation that has been referred to as being a very bad system, in that the provincial council can levy income tax as well as the Union Government. The Poll tax is also retained, and auction dues. The latter is not a big item, but is one that was specially reported on by the Baxter commission as being an unsound tax. With further reference to income tax there is a point that will be brought up in committee, namely, as to whether, when you levy income tax, it is going to be on the profits earned in one province only. You get, for instance, a business concern which is carrying on business in all the provinces and pays a Union income tax. Each province gets the power to levy up to 20 per cent. of the Union income tax. Will that be assessed on the profits earned in the province only; because if not it would seem that provision for it will require to be made in this Bill? As regards the Bill generally, although it does not go far enough. I look upon it as going in the right direction of limiting the spending powers of the provincial councils, while still leaving room for development of self-government, and we must, of course, leave some powers to these people; otherwise we are never going to get any men fit for the position to serve upon the council, and after all it is the same electorate that elects them, and if we want to have any successful provincial councils, we must leave them powers so long as we do have the necessary control. I am sorry that the Minister has not gone further in the direction of imposing economy; because it is still needed there.

How could we improve it?

When we come into committee, perhaps there will be some suggestions on the schedule that will be helpful. I will do my best to help in the matter.

I have no doubt that this is a very important measure. As the Minister remarked in his very lucid speech, there have been many attempts made to put the financial relations between the Government and the provincial administrations on a proper basis, and, as the last speaker has remarked, we have been experimenting all the time; because we have been dealing with something entirely new in the constitution of South Africa, so far as the provincial councils are concerned. I think we are all at one with the Minister when he says the provinces ought to have sufficient money to discharge their functions efficiently; but we are also looking to the Government to go further than that and to use their influence in every possible way to see that the provinces are not only efficient but economical, because there is no doubt at all that the present unsatisfactory position has been caused to a great extent, at any rate, by the inability of the provinces to realize the necessity for economy. That necessity was thrust upon the Union Government some four or five years ago, and steps were taken in that direction; but two or three years elapsed before the provinces realized that they would have to cut down their expenditure because there was not enough money to go round. So I think it is hardly fair for the Minister to blame the late Government for the present position. They were not perfect; but they did their best to deal with a novel state of affairs; and they introduced one Bill after another in an endeavour to put matters on a satisfactory basis. The Minister, I think, has been rather flattering himself that this Bill would be the last word in connection with financial relations between the Government and the provinces. I am glad he shakes his head, because it is just as likely in the future that we shall be called on to pass amending measures as we have been in the past. I say that the provincial system is one which ought to continue. I have, all along, been a strong supporter of it, because I am satisfied that the provinces can, within limits, do better work than the Union Parliament or the Union Government. They are able to look after the needs of the separate provinces in a way which the Union Government Cannot do. I have always thought that the framers of the Act of Union did a wise thing in setting up provincial councils) and although there has been extravagance on the part of these councils, especially on the part of the two larger provinces, the same to some extent can be laid against the Union Government; but taking matters all round, I think there is no doubt at all that the position of education in South Africa is better to-day than it probably would have been had the Union Government had control of it. The two smaller provinces have carried out their duties satisfactorily, and have not got into the same financial straits owing to extravagance as the larger provinces have. Whatever may be said by those in the Cape and the Transvaal regarding the abolition of the provincial system, I don’t think many people would be found in the two smaller provinces to take that view at present. I am glad to see the Government has adopted the system recommended by the Baxter Commission in making per capita grants for education instead of paying lump sums. I am also glad to see that the Government has followed the lead given by the late Government in restricting the powers of taxation of provincial councils, although I think the restriction might have gone a little bit further. The Minister is willing to pay per capita in respect of European pupils attending Government-aided schools, provided the aid given is nine-tenths of the grant. But what about the many pupils attending schools which receive a smaller grant? Apparently they are to get nothing. In all the provinces, at any rate in Natal, there are schools run by private enterprise which are, to some extent, supported by the provinces, but not in some cases to the extent of nine-tenths. We ought to encourage private enterprise in this direction, because to some extent these private schools take a burden off the taxpayer. It is only fair that if a provincial council makes a smaller grant than nine-tenths the Government should pay an equivalent amount. This is not a matter in which a private member can move any amendment in committee, but it is one which the Minister should take into consideration. There is another class of pupil, those attending farm schools. In Natal farmers are encouraged to get a group of children from neighbouring farms to attend their house for instruction or a school is erected, and a schoolmaster is employed, and the province makes a small grant in aid of his salary.

Surely that is an aided school?

It has not been called an aided school in Natal, but I am quite sure the Minister wants to do the right thing, and if he looks into the matter he will see the necessity of paying a reasonable grant in respect of pupils attending farm schools. Clause 3 deals with native education, but it says nothing as to the basis on which grants are to be made by the provinces in regard to native education. Is it to be per capita?

It is a lump sum they are getting now, and for future developments they must look to the development fund.

There ought to be some indication from the Government as to the basis on which these grants for native education are to be made.

Out of the development fund.

Then there is nothing said as to who is to manage the development fund. In Clause 16 the Government wants to go back to the old bad state of affairs in which there was competition between the provinces for teachers. The Transvaal was always short of teachers, and offers higher salaries for persons trained as teachers in the other provinces than the latter were able to do.

There is no shortage of teachers to-day.

But the Minister cannot guarantee that there will not be a shortage a few years hence. In the past this competition for teachers has existed, and we are right in assuming that there will be competition in the future. Have the provinces asked the Minister to introduce this Bill? I do not think they have. I think the Administrators are well pleased with the Act which it is now sought to repeal.

Why don’t they carry it out?

They had not time in which to carry it out. I have a strong suspicion that this clause of the Bill was introduced in order to comply with some rash election promises made by the Minister and his supporters. I come to another point. There is no doubt that Clause 12, which seeks to transfer licence-monies from the municipalities to the Natal Provincial Council is nothing short of confiscation and spoliation. The only reason I can imagine why this is being done is that the Minister is so anxious to help the provinces that he shuts his eyes entirely to the interests of the municipalities. They were never consulted. He didn’t discuss the matter with them until he had agreed on the basis embodied in this Bill, and I think something unfair and unjust has been done here. In the first place, by confiscating these licence monies which are at the present enjoyed by the municipalities in Natal, the Government is infringing the powers conferred on the provincial council by the Act of Union, which laid down amongst the powers of the provincial council the right to legislate regarding municipal institutions. Here we override the Provincial Council in Natal and the Minister asks Parliament to take away the revenue which the municipality has had in Natal for the last 70 years.

At the request of the Provincial Council in Natal they want this.

Then I say the provincial council ought not to be able to steal money from other people. I am quite sure that no member in this House representing a Natal constituency will stand up and advocate this measure because it is so grossly unjust and unfair, and as I said, it contravenes the provisions of the Act of Union. I don’t say the Union Parliament cannot over-ride the Act of Union, but when Union was brought about Natal was brought in on the understanding that her institutions would exist and she would have full power to legislate among other things with regard to municipalities, and if anybody had said that 15 years after Union the Government could come along and with a stroke of the pen take away the large source of revenue from the municipalities, very few would have voted for the Union. I have never said a word about Natal seceding from the Union. It is nonsense to talk like that. A man who talks in that sense is blind to the facts of the history of the last 15 years, and is doing a disservice to his country. I say, at the same time, that this Bill, in taking the power to take away these revenues from the municipalities, which have enjoyed them for the last 70 years, is doing an unjust thing, and is using the power of the Government in an unfair manner. The Minister has said—

I think it is unlikely, once they get it, that they will surrender it. If the Minister will not agree to delete the clause, why not make it conditional upon the provincial council passing a law?

They can do what they like so long as the duty is not put on me to give them this £30,000.

If the Minister did pay £30,000 he would not be paying too much. If he will look up the records of his own office he will see that Natal, by its contributions to the revenue, is entitled to consideration. The Minister gave us two reasons for the clause, one of which was that the provincial council wanted money. Of course they wanted money, we all want money, but why put our hands in other people’s pockets for it? Another reason was that he wants to bring about uniformity. Because the provincial councils have a right to these licence moneys in the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal, the Natal provincial council must deprive the municipalities in Natal of this revenue. The position is not on all fours at all. The province of Natal has never had this revenue and has been obliged to find ways and means without it. It is simply a question of saving the public exchequer additional expense. What about this question of uniformity? This dull, drab level of uniformity, the Minister wants to bring about. Surely the picturesque colony of Natal has a right to something different, something more variegated than we find in the rest of the country. With regard to uniformity the Minister knows with regard to our taxation of diamond companies there is no uniformity. In the Cape we get no share of the profits of De Beers, in the Minister’s own province we get 40 per cent., and in the Transvaal we get the country. With regard to uniformity the 60 per cent. Would the Minister be prepared to introduce a Bill to bring about uniformity of diamond taxation and take a share of De Beers’ profits and bring the Free State into uniformity with the Transvaal? The Minister must not interfere with vested rights in this way. These people have had the right of these licences from the inception of things in Natal and monies have been borrowed by the Municipalities on the strength of their revenue and assets and their powers to tax and levy on licences. This is a thing which has entered into financial consideration when people have advanced money. If this Bill is passed additional taxation will be thrown on the towns and the rest of the province will get off more lightly. The towns are heavily enough taxed as they are. In all towns in the province they have heavy, if not crushing taxation, and it will be looked upon as a breach of faith if the Government go back on the arrangement made in 1913 by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). In 1913 a similar attempt was made to confiscate licence monies and hand them over to the provincial council. When the municipalities put the case before my leader and the matter was argued before him, he saw there was solid ground for objection, and got Parliament to pass the section of the Bill which it is now sought to repeal. In that case the right thing was done. You cannot lightly take away rights from institutions which have had those rights for many years and upon which the edifice has been built up. There is no uniformity even in connection with this Bill. We have the Transvaal treated with regard to these labour fees in a way the other provinces are not treated.

Tell us why the Natal municipalities should have this revenue and not the other municipalities in the country.

For the simple reason that these Natal municipalities have had them in the past. That is a sound reason. Take the case of a private individual. If he occupies a piece of land for a third part of a century he has a prescriptive right in that land. There is no doubt that these municipalities ought not to be deprived of those revenues if for no other reason than that they have enjoyed them so long. The municipal laws throughout the country are not by any means uniform. All the laws passed in the Cape Province with regard to the powers of Town Councils, and borrowing of money, the powers of the Administrator, and so forth, do not exist in other provinces. Take the case of the colour bar. We have been told by the Minister that this would be applied in one province, and possibly not in another. No uniformity again. If you take the Native Land Act, it is not applied to the Cape Province, but it applies to the other provinces. No uniformity.

What has uniformity got to do with this?

Uniformity is one of the reasons given by the Minister.

Not at all.

The Minister simply asked me whether I was arguing in favour of the Natal municipalities having a right which the other municipalities in the rest of the country have not, and the only reason given by the Minister, in addition to the one that the provinces wanted money, was that it was desirable to bring about uniformity. If you go through the whole system of laws in this country you will find in practically every branch, there are many cases where uniformity has not been possible. Take the case of Great Britain. There, they have special laws in Scotland dealing with succession to property, dealing with the marriage relation, they have their separate Parliaments in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but the people are quite happy. They don’t want dead uniformity. I want to know what interest it is to any person in this House who represents a constituency outside of Natal whether certain monies are paid to a Natal municipality or paid to the provincial council? It does not matter to anybody elsewhere at all. So why disturb the existing state of affairs? Why take money away from the old established institutions to hand over to a new institution which has to find its sources of revenue?

Why worry if it does not matter?

It matters very much to Natal. A sum of £50,000 or £60,000 is involved, which will be found entirely by the towns, but if the towns are left in possession of this revenue, then the country people and the townspeople equally will find the £50,000 required by the provincial council. If this source of revenue is taken from the towns and handed over to the provincial council, additional taxation is bound to be imposed by the town councils upon their own people, and that is what I object to. In connection with this matter I would like to read to the House a paragraph from a memorandum which the Minister had handed to him by the municipalities. In this memorandum the municipalities say that Mr. Justice Laurence, in dealing with the question of uniformity in the report on the financial relations between the Union Government and the provinces, used these words—

Then he quotes John Stuart Mill, who says—

We say here that the antecedents in connection with this matter have been overlooked by the Minister, and that if they are given due consideration by the House, Parliament will allow the municipalities in Natal to enjoy the revenue they have had in the past, and let the provincial council tax its own people for its moneys. A very considerable sum is involved. In the smaller villages as much as £150 or £300 will be involved. In the small towns they will lose from £700 to £1,200 per annum. In a place like Durban the revenue they will lose and will have to raise by direct taxation from the people is about £40,000 a year. I say this is a serious matter, and I think the people in Natal have a very serious ground for objection. Let the provincial council deal with this matter; do not seek to legislate over their heads

I will do so at their request if they do not want it.

The Minister never consulted the provincial council. He approached the executive, who could not speak for the whole provincial council, and certainly could not speak for the municipalities. There is one thing in connection with this that ought to be mentioned, and that is that in Pietermaritzburg and Durban, unlike the rest of the country, the municipalities support their own police force. They spend from £80,000 to £90,000 per annum in running their police force, and they have a very efficient and able body of police which do not cost the Government a penny. If it is the intention of the Government indirectly to bring pressure to bear upon the municipalities to hand the police over to the Government, then they are going the right way about it. This would make it impossible for these people to carry out the wishes they have so long held to have control over their own police. No Government has had the courage to bring forward a Bill to abolish these local police forces, because they are doing the work well, the people are satisfied with them, and the people in these municipalities would not, I think, tolerate the indirect attack which I think is now being made upon them; because I am under the impression that the Minister of Justice is most anxious to get control of these police forces.

No.

Well, if that is not the case, I hope the Minister will drop this clause and allow municipalities to enjoy the revenue which they have had in the past. I do not want to labour the point. I think I have stated my case; but I would say, in conclusion, that the Government have approached this subject solely from the point of view of trying to give the provinces a sufficient amount of money to carry on with, and to give them as little as possible from the Union Treasury. They have not considered the question of vested interests or of third parties at all. It is pure spoliation and confiscation, and one can only compare the action of the Government, with its strong majority, with that of an old-fashioned highwayman who stops the traveller and relieves him of his purse at the pistol mouth. It is a ease of applying force in this matter. There is no justice in it. You cannot defend this on the ground of justice. It is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is simply a dodge for relieving the Union Exchequer from paying money which it ought to pay.

On the introduction of the motion for the second reading of this Bill the Minister of Finance stated that this was the last chance which would be given to the provincial council. Like all of us, the Minister appreciates that an inference can be drawn from this which may be damaging to the provincial councils. The Opposition has from time to time gone to work against the provincial council, so that in some portions a strong feeling exists against the councils. I have no authority to speak on behalf of the provincial councils, but what I have always felt is that faith is being kept in connection with the institution of the provincial councils between the various provinces. Just as the Union came into existence by the faith between the various provinces, the provincial councils came into existence as a result of a mutual agreement and faith between the inhabitants of the four provinces, and then we must take it when there is talk of abolishing the provincial councils that it is also a matter of an agreement between the various provinces. Where an attempt is made to abolish the provincial council of a province, then it must be clear to us that it is also an indirect and wily attack on the other provinces. If we do not want to make ourselves guilty of a breach of faith towards the provinces, then we must, in the consideration of the abolition of the council, not only go to work with reference to the province that wants it, but also take into consideration that there is an agreement between all the provinces. There is no doubt that especially the smaller provinces in Natal and the Free State are particularly anxious to retain the provincial system, and therefore I should like, when we talk here and say something which might damage the supporters of the system, we should take account of the feeling of the provinces, and I think that the only way to bring about the abolition of the provincial councils is the way in which they came into existence. In commencing, I said that I hold no brief to advocate the continuance of the provincial councils, but it cannot be denied that the continuance of the provincial councils (an institution of the national convention) will depend on the way they do their work. When they were instituted certain work was entrusted to them, and the question to-day before the House is whether the provincial councils have done the work entrusted to them. We can only judge this if we look at past history. I do not want to do this now, but then only can we see whether it justifies or not the continuance of the provincial councils. We may not undermine their existence only because they have not answered to all expectations or in certain respects have disappointed a certain portion of the population. Now it is said here and outside the House that the provincial councils have recklessly administered the money of the province, and that is one of the chief reasons why in the Transvaal and in the Cape Province a portion of the population is unfavourably disposed towards the provincial councils. A portion of the population thinks that the provincial councils spend too much on education, and in this connection an unfair criticism is made. The expenditure on education is compared with the expenditure in other dominions of the British Empire. It is very unfair, because the circumstances of the past five years in South Africa differ so in certain senses to other dominions. It is said that Australia is just about as sparsely populated as South Africa and that a comparison can therefore be made there, but there is one fact that immediately makes the comparison unfair, and that is that until the commencement of the Union very little was done for education and we were very far behindhand compared with Australia. I do not wish to make any reflection on what was done before Union, but it must be acknowledged that at the commencement of the Union and for about six years thereafter a large portion of the children of the countryside were not at school. According to the then Minister of Agriculture, who is now president of the Senate, about one-third of the school-going children of the Union were not at school. Accordingly, we see that great energy was necessary to bring our education up to the mark, and we cannot compare the circumstances here with those in Australia. Now I ask again whether we are satisfied with the work that the provincial councils have done? At the first blush I think we feel grateful for what has been done during the past 15 years. Just let us look at two matters. If we look in the first place at education, then we see how the number of children at school have increased, and that not alone there is a large increase to note in the number of children who have been admitted, but there are places such as boarding schools established, and as far as the Cape Province is concerned, I think that the provincial council can justify its existence for this reason alone on the countryside. The provincial councils have certainly rendered a great service to the country population. In the second place I come to hospital development, which is also entrusted to the provincial council. The work which has been done in this connection also justifies, I think, the existence of the provincial council. There cannot be satisfaction in every respect, but where the work of development has not been such as we could wish there, it should not be forgotten that it is to a large extent attributable to interference with the work of the provincial councils, interferences and limitations which are attributable to political economy. The services have been retrenched on a pretence of economy, and if the education of the people is not to suffer damage as in the past, then the money must be made available. It is a serious matter for us to enquire which weighs the most, the education of the people or other materialistic views. I could quote an extract from the report of the superintendent of education from which it appears that development has been limited by economy which was imposed by the central Government on the provincial authorities. It appears i.a. from the report that during the year 1923, applications for 200 schools had to be refused in consequence of reduction of subsidies and that school buildings could not be erected for the same reason. It also appears from the same report that the number of school-going children since 1922 became appreciably less than in the preceding year. The number has lessened during the past year by 2,000 instead of increasing with the normal increase of about 5,000 to 7,000 per year. In the Cape Province school buildings have been erected at great expense and some of them have been very much neglected in consequence of this policy of economy. It is actually a fact that the reduction of the means of the provincial council has had the result that progress is hindered. When we consider the matter we should bear in mind the work which was originally entrusted to the provincial council and some dissatisfaction exists at the improper execution of the work. In the first place proper provision is not always made with regard to hospitals. There are parts of our country where this complaint does not exist and as to the Cape province there are some parts which are almost over provided for. And the same also applies to the Transvaal. But I think that in the other provinces the provision leaves a good deal to be desired.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

Before the adjournment of the House I tried to point out certain reasonable grounds for a measure of dissatisfaction among the people and in the country against the provincial councils and I remarked that in the past proper provision was not made for certain services which the people required, and for which the provincial councils had been created, services which were either not carried out or only partially carried out. I pointed to the unsatisfactory conditions with regard to hospitals and I want to add the unsatisfactory provision for our old worn out house people. In considering this new Bill we have an opportunity of judging what chances there are of the provincial councils duly carrying out the work which has been entrusted to them. In my opinion provisions are made in the new Bill of such a kind that the provincial councils in the future will be able to fully justify their existence and I expect they will do so. I want to refer to a few alterations in the relation between the State and the provincial councils from which I think we can infer that we can expect better services in the future from the provincial councils. In the first place in this new Bill the sword of Damocles which has always threateningly hung over the continuance of the provincial councils is taken away and I hope for good, namely the threat of being choked or crushed, and so to make their existence impossible. The fear of application of certain recommendations of the provincial finances commission whereby existence would be made impossible has been taken away. From the commencement when the new Government came into power we expected that it would take up a more sympathetic attitude towards the services which have to be rendered by the provincial council to the people and the expectation has been confirmed by this Bill. The great difficulties of the provincial councils in getting money for the carrying out of the services entrusted to them are to a great extent taken away and even if limitations in this respect exist namely that provision is only made for the necessary service education then the prospect, nevertheless, exists that by the circumscribing not only of the business but also of the sources of taxation of the provincial councils, there will be sufficient income for the carrying out of the services they are charged with. When economy is spoken of we must not forget that it is not only the duty of the provincial councils but also our own and that of the whole people individually and jointly. It is especially unfair of hon. members to suggest that in the past they neglected to keep their own house in order and to lay everything at the door of the provincial councils. Where now provision is here made—and we hope and expect sufficient provision—for the revenue of the provincial councils and the sword of Damocles is removed there the hope that the provincial councils will receive fresh vigour and now render the services to the people for which they were intended. In one particular respect special improvement has been brought about in the services and this is with regard to primary and secondary education. This is now secured. In the past we saw what the result was of too much economy but now that new provision is made for this necessary service we hope that the best use will be made of it to meet the great need that exists. It breaks the heart when one thinks that 15,000 to 20,000 children of school-going age in the Cape Province alone are not at school and that such insufficient provision is made for the education of our children. I only wish to mention one example in this connection and that is, of a diggings which I know. There are 325 children and six teachers, and a corrugated iron building with one room is available for teaching in. That was the position at the end of February on that diggings. I hope that it has now been altered. And this condition of things prevails not only on this specific diggings but the schools on the country side in general have insufficient accommodation to comply with the standard of education which is required everywhere today for the education of the younger generation. Another example is one of the diggings in the Transvaal where I think there are 1,200 children who have no education. These are only general examples of the unsatisfactory conditions and when I say this then I am still far from painting the exact position. Now provision is made here for a service of the people only, namely for primary education. It is certainly a good thing but when we speak of education then we think not only of primary education but of a systematic thorough education and if cause of dissatisfaction exists, then it is actually because our educational system in the past was too impractical and did not answer to the requirements of the people. Therefore we expect that under the new conditions this great defect will be removed and a system will be adopted which will properly provide for the national needs of the people, and will coincide with the character of the people in all grades. Besides primary education there are so many other services for which provision ought to be made. Another provision in this Bill is that the Government allowances do not operate for children under seven years. This is a domain—I know it—on which there are differences of opinion and about which there are members in this House who differ from me. But if I only regard the matter from a health point of view, then I say that a child under seven years in the first place should be developed physically and not so much mentally. The development of bone, flesh and lungs deserves the most consideration in a child under seven years of age. Therefore I welcome the provision which has also been made for the proper laying out of our towns in the future. This is a very important point for the future development of our country. I know that as circumstances are to-day the question is not such a burning one, but we do not surely expect to remain so small, we reckon on development, and the way in which villages are at present laid out is entirely unsatisfactory for future development. We must take count of the future. Then the new Bill lays down that the Minister of Education from time to time can take over certain work from the divisional councils with their approval. This is, in my opinion, important, and, i.a., done to meet the need existing in the past for satisfactory practical teaching calculated to prepare our young people for practical life. We welcome the understanding which has been brought about at Durban, and we hope that it will shortly be practically applied throughout the whole of the Union. Further provision is made to give our students access to the hospitals. Hitherto an unsatisfactory condition of things prevailed because the hospitals do not belong to the State, but fall as such under the provinces, and if one or other of the provinces closed the doors to the student, then the State would have its rights interfered with and our higher education would suffer damage, because the State would not be in a position to make proper provision for our students. But—I hope the hon. Minister will pay attention to this—I do not think that the matter is sufficiently amplified, and I suspect that a change will shortly have to be made, because the Bill now reads that the hospitals can be made available for students, that is, there is no obligation, and therefore we retain the possible opposition on the part of the provincial authorities and hospital boards. These will probably not refuse admission, but it does not take away that this provision is of a temporary nature and imposes no obligation. We have already had difficulties in the past where access was given to students and extension was necessary, and a dispute arose as to who should pay the cost for more accommodation, the hospital board or the university. The difficulties arose not only at the Gape but also in Johannesburg. I think that in general the whole House is thankful to the Minister for the improved relation which is create d between the provincial councils and the State, but we should not be honest if we did not bring to the notice of the House other shortcomings that are felt. In this Bill provision is actually only made for one service, namely, primary education. We see to it that primary education is properly looked after by the provincial councils, but as to other services, we leave the matter entirely to the provincial councils.

It is given to them by the constitution.

But I should like provision to be made that the House in future will also see that certain other necessary services are well performed. I only wish to point to the unsatisfactory hospital accommodation in some parts of the country. Some parts of our country are actually over-provided with hospitals. Others very badly, and the requirements are not yet met. Where the necessity is not so great, provision is often made, but where the necessity is great, no provision is made. Such a position should be obviated in future, and therefore the only way out is to create a body which can properly judge of the requirements so that provision shall be made in compliance therewith. But a matter which is especially noticeable is that to-day no provision is made for our old people, for our worn-out people. In the Cape Colony we have two institutions, one in Cape Town and one in Grahamstown. In the Transvaal there is one in connection with the Rietfontein hospital. As for Natal, there are, I think, only two wards in the hospital at Pietermaritzburg available for the old people, and as to the Free State, there I believe no provision at all is made. There is a great need in the country of institutions where the old people will find a refuge to pass the last days of their lives. I feel that, especially as regards Natal and the Free State, provision must be made. Another necessity, I think, is that a certain measure of uniformity is lacking in the four provinces. I do not wish to refer to the same things as were mentioned by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). The four provinces exist separately and have the right of existence, hut we must have uniformity, and with that I mean particularly in education. I am not for slavish imitation, and I do not know whether anyone is prepared to make a recommendation to take away the lack of uniformity, but we feel the need of uniformity not only in educational matters but also with regard to the nursing service and pensions for the nursing staff. A permanent pension fund for the nursing service has been created in three provinces, but in each case on its own basis, and not everywhere equally fair, while the Free State, although the most economical province, has no provision. Then I still wish to express one thought about which strong feeling exists, and that is the relation between the various services of the State and the provinces. It is difficult to fix where the duty of the State ends and where that of the provinces begins. I think it is very necessary to enquire into this relation to clearly define the boundaries between the duties of the State and those of the provinces so that the duties of the one overlap upon the other and other duties be entirely neglected. Although no one is perfect, and the new Bill is not in all respects perfect, we are entitled to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the Bill now before the House, which will give new vitality to the provincial councils by which they will be in a better position to answer to the expectations of the people.

There seems to be a kindlier breeze blowing towards the provincial councils than we have had for some time. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) and others actually had some praise for the good work they have done. This is a pleasure to one who has served on a provincial council. I think it would be a good thing if all members of this honourable House had served their apprenticeship on provincial councils and on municipal councils. So many come in as experts to govern the whole country who have had very little direct touch with the people themselves. So far as the provisional councils are concerned.

They are washouts.

They have been condemned to death almost from the start. One hon. member in referring to this Bill hoped it would be the last measure to be introduced in regard to financial relations, and that the next would be for abolition of provincial councils. Some hon. gentlemen seem to be incapable of clear thought; they do not realize that constitutionally we stand by the provincial councils. Does anybody suppose that the Transvaal, with all its assets, would have come into this Union of insolvent States had it not been that they had something of local self government in their hands, a protection which has been often threatened but still remains? The councils have been blamed continuously—for what? Extravagance. That is the only thing that can be brought against them, and it has been asserted, particularly in regard to education. It is our pride in the Transvaal to say we have now a fine educational system; and for the first time in our history we are giving a real chance to the rising generation; and we repel this charge of extravagance. You cannot waste money on education; the most expensive thing in the world is ignorance. No scandal attaches to their expenditure, such for instance as that of the Durban grain elevator, and to what is going to be a still greater scandal, and that is in regard to the electrical commission and the surrender of concessions to the Victoria Falls Power Co., at Witbank. That is a scandal which is still to be unmasked. Seeing we have got past the annihilation of provincial councils, and there is a more temperate tone in regard to them, we welcome this measure as at least some indication that there is a willingness to put their finances on a sounder footing. I do not think that they have yet had full justice. The South Africa Act laid down that they should have the right of imposing direct taxation. Under the Bill this right is being curtailed, and they are being told that they must tax in such and such a way. That is a distinct infringement of the Act of Union. Where Provincial Councils have broken down from the start has been that this House, or the Government, has never provided sufficient money for capital expenditure to enable the provinces to develop. It is in adequate capital expenditure that satisfaction would have been given to the people. Think of the immense quantity of public works required in a new country like the Transvaal and the £300,000 or less doled out a year, when our programme of works was £1,800,000, and where you could spend half a million in bridges alone to the advantage of the railways and the Union. It is there the failure has been principally. I want to give a little instance of how feeling goes towards provincial councils under the leadership of a portion of the public press. I am going to quote from the “Cape Times” which starts off with praising the tremendous attack of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) on the extravagance of the Cape provincial council. This green flag of the faithful goes for the Administrator of the Cape Province for saying that “every available surplus would be placed at the disposal of the provincial education department for the purpose of righting the painful wrong in respect of European school development, so as, at the earliest possible moment, to bring back again into the school net those children who have been temporarily ‘piped away’ by the music which the economists have inflicted upon us during previous sessions in Parliament. In other words, his Honour is about to launch the Cape Province into another orgy of munificence without a thought for the future.” That is from this organ of light and leading which has to face the fact that provision for education has not kept pace with the ordinary birth rate. Side by side, in this precious organ, leading articles speak of this orgy of extravagance and then the scandal of—

Provincial councillors find hon. gentlemen pleading for economy and then we get these editors urging expenditure. They can’t have it both ways. I am for greater expenditure in this country. We do not spend nearly enough on hospitals. It we work hospitals well and restore people to health it will make for real economy. It has been laid down authoritatively that the closer you get to the people, in governing them, the more content the people are, and these provincial institutions fill a place between Parliament and the people fulfilling a very useful purpose, in that they know what the people want and, as far as their financial ability allows, meet those wants. Municipalities cannot abolish slums without further power, and provincial councils are tied up in the same way, yet there is wonder why a country like this develops so slowly. It is because of the lack of liberty allowed to local institutions. Before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, I trust there will be an amendment in it which is seriously necessary. The subsidy grant is not to apply to scholars in private schools unless those are supported to the extent of nine-tenths of their cost by the province. There are exceptions in the Cape of Church primary schools; but all over the Union there are private institutions saving the State a great deal of money in educating children. To the extent that these come under inspection, and fulfil the required standards they should be assisted, at least until we can have a full State service, when the State provides for every possible kind of education right up from the kindergarten to the universities, and until that comes it is not fair that we should not give contributions to those other educational institutions. One religious denomination has done wonderful work without any State assistance. I refer to the Catholic. They pay their taxes and educate children largely themselves.

Mr. NEL. What do they pay their teachers?

In some cases teachers have actually returned the cheques which were drawn for their salaries.

There is no minimum wage.

They keep up the standard of education which the State demands, and supply education which the State cannot give—even here in the Cape they have been unable to meet the requirements of the children. The grant should be based also on pupils in private schools approved of by the provincial council; these should count in regard to the subsidy. I think that is an act of common justice. I now come to a portion of this Bill which I regret to criticize rather adversely. In order that the criticism may be understood, I must recall the fact that under the direct system of taxation we taxed gold mines, on their profits, a comparatively small amount, and if there was no profit there was no tax. We were dealing with a great asset; a national heritage. Our right to put on that tax was disputed. The Companies took us to court, and the provincial council won. The court said that under the South Africa Act we had a perfect right to put on the tax. Then we had the hon. member for Standerton passing an Act for the relief of those companies—which make £8,000,000 a year profit—from this paltry tax of £180,000.

It is the same to-day.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) himself drew attention to the inequity that this Government also has stood by the gold companies and not by private employers in regard to the particular tax I am going to refer to now. To meet that difficulty—we were about £180,000 to £200,000 short—we had to do something to get back what was taken away from us, what was held by some to have been wrongly taken away, and we thought of the employers tax. I admit we wanted to reach the gold companies, which had been taken out of our power, and the only way we could see was to put on a general employers’ tax. This has been hailed as an iniquitous tax—a tax on the employment of people. It was said—

But the Labour party are very level headed. This Bill exempts gold companies from the tax in rather a curious and indirect way. The Bill provides that the subsidy shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to the proceeds of the employers tax if put on gold companies. This is another concession to the companies, which always seem to have influence over Governments, and deprives the Transvaal of taxation to the amount of £180,000, which will have to be made up by taxation of the people. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) complained the other day that he had to pay £100 in the Transvaal for this employers tax. It is all very well to talk about this dreadful tax and how it restricts industries, but hon. members should take an individual case and work it out. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says he pays £100 a year on this tax; that means he has 108 people in his employ in the Transvaal. Taking a very low average of £100 per annum for each employee, his total salary bill would be £10,800, and with the addition of the employers tax, amount to £10,900, and then he wails about it. Does that tax stop him from carrying on his industries in the Transvaal, or force him to dismiss a single employee? Not by any manner of means, as he does not employ people for a joke, but to make them earn their pay, including the tax. I will now take the case of a man employing only ten persons, eight of whom are exempted. Assuming that he pays his employees, natives, an average of £50 a year each, his pay list would be £500 a year, with the tax increased to £502. While I don’t defend the principle of an employers tax, it is not so unfair as some people and newspapers would make out. The Transvaal is not writhing under the tax, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is not shutting up his business in the Transvaal. The question is, what are you giving people in return for taxation? In the Transvaal we are proud that we have increased teachers’ salaries, and the despised Transvaal is the one province that is giving the very highest type of education. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the very great injustice of taxing mutual life insurance companies, this really being a tax on thrift.

We have called attention to it already. You are too late, my dear chap.

A gentleman connected with one of the great South African mutual insurance companies points out that this company paid £6,700 a year in income tax, and about £2,000 a year more in other taxes. As the company is a mutual one, its expenses must be divided amongst the policy holders, a very large number of whom are in the employ of the Government, and others are men and women making provision for their old age. At the end of 30 years the amount which this company will pay in taxes will, with compound interest, amount to about £300,000. As this is a mutual office, it should be treated as savings banks are, and be free of taxation. The Minister of Finance should very carefully consider whether he cannot give relief by stating definitely that mutual life insurance companies will not be liable to taxation. I am very glad indeed that there is a disposition to give provincial councils a greater measure of freedom, and if we meet them in the spirit of assistance, I am perfectly certain they will work out the salvation of the country, because they reach the wants of the uttermost parts of the Union, which a centralized Government cannot do. Our Ministers are overworked already, while the substitution of divisional for provincial councils would not effect a saving, but would merely keep the country back. This is a wonderful country. There is nothing wrong with it. It is the people who are wrong. We have a country we are not worthy of—we deserve to be kicked out of it. Americans or Australians would have developed its great resources. Our course has been the financial interests, and the big traders in the ports who have been merely importers and exporters, and who see nothing of what great opportunities lying at their feet. We can spend forty millions on war, but when an attempt is made to develop the country peacefully, at once we hear a howl for economy, and are told not to borrow and not to spend. We, on these benches, believe in the country to such an extent that we would back it for every penny we could raise. The Minister should not drop into the slough of despond, pictured by the Opposition, which wishes merely to exploit the country for the benefit of the few; and if that is done you will have what you can see in the slums of Cape Town and other cities. If you come with me on a Sunday morning, you will realize the result of this town being under the administration of men of the calibre of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I would like to see the future of this country in the slums of Cape Town. Then you will agree to stand by the provincial councils and help them to make South Africa one of the finest countries in the world.

If I agreed with the last speaker that provincial councils were the agents which were going to turn this country into the Paradise that he looks forward to, I would not have a word to say against them. The hon. member is like other hon. members on that side to whom education is a kind of parrot-cry. Whenever the mention of provincial council extravagance is made, they say—

They point to the number of children out of schools. If it was a question of providing accommodation for children now outside schools no amount of expenditure would be too great. No one has ever challenged expenditure intended to provide school accommodation for children not now able to get it. What we have attacked and rightly attacked, is the policy of the provincial council which covers the country with unnecessary high schools and training colleges, some of which they have had to close, whilst children in the lower ranks of education, were unable to find accommodation. That is the policy we criticize, and where we say economy would be a benefit to the country.

What about the Baxter Report?

If the hon. member would read the Baxter Report with a view to understanding it, he would find the Baxter Report was not for starving education, but for making education more efficient.

They recommended closing 1,200 schools.

If the hon. member knows anything about education, he knows that a school with four or five children is a waste of money. There are ways of getting them to more centralized schools. If he studies the opinion of people who have made education their life’s study, he would see that in the opinion of a great many of them, the small school with four, five, six or nine children is a waste of effort, a waste of efficiency and a waste of education.

You know nothing about it.

That is an easy retort, and I could easily say the same to the hon. member if I had not more respect for him and myself. The hon. member who has spoken, regards the provincial councils as the heralds of a rosier age in the country. I don’t take such an optimistic view of their powers. I would wish to call attention to this sort of campaign which the hon. member has made himself the mouthpiece of, against economy, as if economy were a crime. I regard economy as an object of very practical public importance, not in the sense of starving the necessary services, but in the sense of getting the best results you can with the least expenditure of public money, getting efficiency and not waste. Nobody can deny except the hon. member for Pretoria West) (Mr. Hay) perhaps—

Was the Durban elevator waste?

Of course the Durban elevator was a waste. He has a very short memory if he thinks the provincial council of the Transvaal has been entirely free from the breath of scandal. We have all been guilty of extravagances.

What scandals are you referring to?

One or two members who used to be members of the Transvaal Provincial Council have disappeared from public life on account of those scandals, and I will say nothing more about them. I was pointing out if the hon. member for Pretoria (West) wants to lead a campaign against economy, I advise him not to shake his finger against this side of the House, but to begin by converting his friends opposite. Once upon a time, the greatest attacks they made on us were those of extravagance. They wanted more economy, but to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) economy was a crime, we were not spending enough money in his eyes. That is why I advise him to begin by converting his friends before preaching to us. Perhaps they have been converted already. Another point he called attention to, was the fact that the exemption from provincial taxation Conferred on mining companies by an Act of this House, has been maintained and reinforced under the provisions of this Bill. Quite, rightly, because I have held that it is a great mistake to allow the profits of the mining companies, which ought to be a source of taxation to the Union Government, to be dipped into by the provincial councils also. I have defended that ever since it was done, on those grounds. I recall what hon. members said about us when we brought that Bill forward. They said we had done it because we were in the pockets of the mining companies. What do they say now? The hon. Minister has had the courage to say it was the right thing to do, and he has maintained it. The whole tone of public life was lowered by the way hon. members opposite made it a subject for criticism, not on its merits, but in order to insinuate that we did it for private reasons. I am a little disappointed with this Bill, because I had hoped for something from what the hon. Minister said last session, far more comprehensive than this. He told us that the present Government had found provincial affairs in a hopeless muddle.

Hear, hear.

I expected that from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, because he has not had a chance of looking into it, like the hon. Minister. We were told this muddle was going to be cleared up once and for all. I don’t think the Minister takes such an optimistic view of his Bill now as he did when looking at it from the viewpoint of last session. The provincial councils had piled up big deficits. The Government of the day was in the position of having to compel them to reduce expenditure, and having reduced as far as they could, expenditure on Union services, they thought it was only right—

Money was borrowed and spent on administration.

We did not borrow money to spend on administration. The hon. member has got a tinge of inaccuracy into his statement in order to help his point. We took revenues from the loan funds and used them for ordinary administration. Don’t hon. members know the difference in borrowing money from somebody else, and using money that is your own? These revenues would not have paid off a cent of borrowed money. What we did was that we refrained from carrying out capital work which would have been paid for by these revenues, and we used the revenues for administrative purposes, instead of for capital purposes. I want the hon. member to have the courage to face the facts. He told us we had taken borrowed money. That is wrong. He told us that we had taken revenue that should have been taken to pay off debts. That is wrong. We used revenues which should have been used for capital purposes, for administrative purposes. Being compelled to do it, we felt it was necessary that provincial councils should make approximately the same cut in their expenditure. I admit that the cut was a drastic one and was made at a time and in a manner which made it difficult for the provincial councils to carry on their administration without incurring deficits, or imposing very heavy taxation. It was done with the idea that they would economize on their services and to a certain extent they did. I don’t think it was reasonable to expect them to economize to the extent of the reduction made in their subsidies. At first they undoubtedly incurred deficits, but outside the Cape Province, the others struggled on. They incurred deficits, but not on a large scale. Had the Cape Province done its duty as the other provinces did, these deficits incurred, would not have amounted to anything very serious, and in time would have been satisfactorily dealt with.

There was a S.A. party majority in the provincial council.

The hon. member has a microscopic eye when he wants to make a party score, and he loses sight of the other issues. The Cape Province wavered between one tax and another tax, and nothing was done, and in the end, they were left with a large deficit, not only because their expenditure was in excess of their revenue, but also because they were faced with an undisclosed deficit of £600,000 for the financing of school expenditure. Outside the Cape Provincial Council, the deficits were not very serious. The hon. Minister says—

I agree, but we were not in the position to give the provinces over £1,000,000 a year more in the way of subsidy.

Why not?

Because we had not the revenue, and you had. He has come in at a happy moment in the country, when he has an overflowing revenue.

And better administration.

Does the hon. member think that this improved state of affairs is due to improved administration? I think he had better not say too much about that, or doubts may be raised about his sanity. We could not have brought about this solution because we had not got the money. We were bound under the old law, before it was modified, to meet the expenditure of the provinces. Whatever it might be, we had to put up an equal amount. We were driven by the necessities of the case to devise some method of control over provincial expenditure. This one the Minister has got is a much better one than we had, but it has involved him in an additional million of money in the way of subsidies which we could not possibly afford to pay. So far I have nothing to say against the Bill at all. I think this method of subsidy is a much better and a much more scientific one than we had before.

They got it from the Baxter report.

But, as I said, it was one we could not introduce because we had not got the money.

Were there no other reasons?

No; the Baxter report, we said, we adopted in principle at a time when members opposite were denouncing it. We, indeed, proposed it at the meeting of provincial executives held here in 1924, but the provinces would not accept it.

Why not?

Because we had not got the money to give them. They wanted much more money than we could give them. That is why. If we had been able to go to them with gifts in our hands, like the Minister, this thing would have been accepted in 1924, instead of 1925. The Minister has been in possession of the necessary oil to smooth the machinery, which we had not got. But don’t let hon. members run away with the idea that this Bill is going to be the final solution of provincial finance. I hope the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will not be lulled to sleep by that happy thought. No, the Bill is a stop-gap in regard to financial relations, for this reason, that it gives to these bodies, these little Parliaments which are set up in each province, an enormous proportion of their necessary funds without any responsibility on their part for the raising of it. That never has been and never will be a satisfactory method of administration.

I thought you were going to do the same if you had the funds.

We would have done the same thing, but we would have accompanied it by a further reduction of their taxing powers. Before I come to that point again, I would like to mention one or two points of detail. One is in regard to the restrictions on the powers of taxation. We are told that the turn-over tax has been done away with, and that the tax on companies’ capital has been done away with, and that various other restrictions have been put on, but we must not forget that, as a compensation for these restrictions and withdrawals, we are going to have a Union licensing system, the proceeds of which are going to be handed over to the provincial councils, and I think when the public—

The councils have got the proceeds now.

Yes, but they raise the licences themselves. Now we are going to impose the licences and collect the proceeds and hand them over to the provincial councils. But I will say this, that when the people in the country feel the pinch of these new licences, particularly the professional men—lawyers, doctors, dentists, and people of that kind—this arrangement will not, I am afraid, be quite so popular as it is now. Another matter which I would like to mention is the question dealt with by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), that is the controversy in Natal about these municipal licences which are now going to be handed over to the Provincial Council. The Natal towns seem to be greatly concerned, and I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that so long as the Natal Provincial Council raises the necessary equivalent within its own borders, and does not come down on the Union taxpayer for a contribution in respect of these licences, it seems to me that no great harm would be done if the provincial council of Natal were left to settle this question themselves. The Bill, as I have said, I am afraid is not going to be a final one, because I do not trust bodies like the provincial councils, little parliaments, to carry on their work when so much of their revenues is raised without any responsibility on the part, without any of the odium of taxation, which is the real incentive to efficiency and economy—I do not think they are going to carry on their work without coming back to this Parliament and asking for more money. Taxation is unpopular; these people do not like to make themselves unpopular, and I am satisfied that before very long you will have these provincial councils coming along and saying “We want more money.” As long as the provincial councils last, so long is there going to be a constant appeal to the Union Government to finance them, to help them over their difficulties, and enable them to avoid putting on unpopular taxation. We have had in the Transvaal a fair dose of taxation. We have an additional income tax which is not levied in the Cape or Natal, but which I venture to prophesy will be levied there before very long, and, in spite of all the unpopularity which attaches to it, I think myself, if the provincial councils have got to raise revenue, it, is as good as any other and a better way than many we have got in the Transvaal. After all the income tax is a fair tax, it is levied on a fair basis, and I think in most countries, certainly in a great many countries, one of the methods of raising funds for local taxation is by an additional percentage on the income tax. So I do not regard this second income tax as a bad tax in principle. It is unpopular, but, if the revenue has to be found, I do not think it is a bad way of doing it. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) defending the employers’ tax. When you strip it of all that he said about it, what does it come to? Not that it was a good tax to put on, but it was a method of getting at the mines. The mines are a magnificent subject for taxation. It is a case of shearing a sheep that cannot kick back. If you put it on the income tax everyone who pays it is up against you and records his intention of voting against you at the next election. It is high time that the mines ceased to be a milch cow for the provincial council of the Transvaal. The mines were brought into the Union as a national asset, and the national convention would have had something to say about it if they had thought they were going to be used as a milch cow for the Transvaal and not as a national asset. At a time when unemployment is rampant in the country you put on a tax which penalizes every man who employs two men where one would do. You put a definite barrier in the way of a man extending the sphere of his employment. You make him think twice whether he should take on another man or not. If there was even a tax which was indefensible and unjustifiable except as a last resort, it is the employers tax. The provincial councils I think are a bad form of local government. We have two ways before us, the way of federation, which is advocated by members of the cross-benches, or the method of local government. With the provincial councils it is neither one thing nor the other. They are little parliaments set up in each of the four provinces. Their members are very often elected on issues which have as little to do with local government as the changes in the moon. You have them there supposed to represent the provinces which came into the Union, and they keep alive the provincial spirit, and are putting an obstacle in the way of that union which it was thought the national convention would bring about. If you are going to have real local government in South Africa you must have it carried on by bodies that are really local and that are not going to take their members far away from their homes. It is a great misfortune for the Transvaal that we have not got a system of divisional councils such as we have had in the Cape for many years. Had it not been for the provincial council system we should have had the beginning of a real local government system in the Transvaal. Provincial councils, so far from being the salvation of the country, have stopped the development of the country along one of the lines most necessary to our national life, and that is the line of local government. To my mind, so far from provincial councils being the only means by which to save ourselves in this country from slums, capitalism and the money power, they are going to keep back the political development of the country. I do hope the Government will see that we do not progress further along this path of federation, but that we proceed along the path of real genuine local self-government. I quite admit that the people of this country have not quite come to the point at which they wish to see provincial councils abolished, and while that is so we have to go on with them. I admit the subsidies will be placed on a more scientific basis under this Bill than before, and to that extent I welcome the Bill but if it is claimed that this Bill is going to establish the councils once and for all on a basis on which they can carry on their work without further recourse to the Union Government, then I do not believe it. I have no doubt the Bill will go through, and I believe it will do good. It will give the councils one more chance, and I hope they will make use of that chance. I hope they will manage to get along for some time to come on the liberal basis on which they are endowed. I do not think anyone can think the present arrangement is a good one, or is one that is going to last.

I have always listened with the greatest attention to my hon. friend the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and always also with great interest to his speeches, because I have found that I could always learn something from him. I have not been disappointed to-night, because I have learned something about the Baxter report. As I read it and as hon. members on this side read it and I am sure many hon. members opposite as well, it is something which in a special way interferes with education in the country side and one of the chief reasons why the late Government came to its fall was its acceptance of the chief recommendation of the Baxter report. One of the chief recommendations of the Baxter report is that the small farm schools must be closed. The Government did everything to get the farmer back to the country side. When once the farmer goes to the town or village he is lost and he comes to no good there. We have, therefore, done our best to keep him on the farm. But the Baxter report proposes that the small farm schools must be closed and where will that man’s child be educated? The hon. member for Yeoville can with all his astuteness read it as many times as he likes he will find that it is so. What must occur if the children are far from the school? The farmers work is very casual, but he is much attached to it and the education which his child gets in those farm schools we must not take away from him. Do my hon. friends know where that report comes from? I will not give my own opinion, I will say what the administrator of the Cape Province says.

Tut, tut.

Yes, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the acceptance thereof would save a million. It would, however, happen at the expense of the country side and the farmer. What says the administrator who must be regarded as an administrator of the S.A.P.

He has now transferred his allegiance.

The administrator says—

The interests of the merchants had to be protected in spite of what my learned hon. friend read in the report, and that at the expense of the country side. But the Cape Town friends were cleverer still. The Cape Town Chamber of Commerce passed another resolution, viz.—

However clever my hon. friend for Yeoville may be and also the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) it will do much good if they would make a small trip to one of the out-stations of the country side, and see how the people sit there by oil lamps making sacrifices for the education of their children. But they find that they cannot continue it because the greatest gamble in the country is undoubtedly the farming industry. As soon as the previous Minister of Finance accordingly announced that he would accept the chief principles of the report a great revulsion took place in the country.

It was a political opposition.

Yes, as soon as the Government commenced to prefer the merchant and other classes of society in the towns at the cost of the country side, and we raised our voices against it, then we always heard that we were creating political opposition to those measures. I go further. The report further recommended that the number of pupils for a farm school should be increased from ten to nineteen. This meant that approximately 1,200 of such schools on the country side would have to be closed. That was the object—no, I will not say so—that would have been the consequence if the former Government had carried out that recommendation. The report goes further. The unhappy farmer who can scrape together that number of children has still to give the school building and he must arrange for free board and lodging for the school mistress. The report also recommends that the boarding schools for necessitous pupils must maintain themselves. Do my hon. friends know what this would have meant? If we consider all the boarding schools then it would have meant that 700 children would have been put on the street.

No, 7,000.

Yes, my hon. friend is right, there would have been 7,000 on the street. Is that a political twisting on our side?

I never agreed with that, and we do not adopt it.

Well, then you have never read the Baxter report. If we take thickly populated areas like the Cape Peninsula we find that the extra tax for the transport of the children means approximately ⅛d. in the pound. On the country-side this will come, in some instances, to 3d. or 4d. Then the hon. member still has the impudence to say that the present Government did not find the provincial councils in a mess. In consequence of the continual reduction of the subsidies there were 20,000 children in the Cape Province alone out of school who should have been in it, and Minister Burton acknowledged this, because he said that he was going to knee-halter the provincial councils. I wonder where we would have arrived in the end if matters had gone on so. It is not a waste of money if we spend it on education. I admit that here and there unnecessary palaces have been built for school buildings. But my hon. friends opposite must not throw mud. They must still remember what happened here last year. They must remember that Minister Burton denied that he had requested the provincial authorities to delay the appearance of the Provincial Gazette so that the contents of an ordinance should not become known until he had put his Bill on financial relations through the House. He denied it and both in the House and in the provincial council it was subsequently proved that the denial was untrue. We cannot throw mud at the provincial councils and at the Transvaal provincial council. The last nail in the coffin of the old Government was the expectation of the people that they would adopt the Baxter report because they considered it in the interests of the country.

While the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) was speaking, he made an appeal to me, in his argument in regard to the employers’ tax. From his point of view, he made a very excellent case, and when he appealed to me as he did, I felt rather nonplussed for a reply; so much so that, in place of bringing forward any argument of my own, I should like, in turn, to make an appeal unto Caesar. This Caesar is a nameless person; a gentleman who according to his own account on many platforms lost his name quite recently, and who, I think, when I come to give particulars of the authority I can quote on this particular point, we might also say has lost his memory. This man who described himself as having no name, might now be termed the “Man who Was.” The authority I quote stated, when dealing with this employers’ tax, that it was “the worst possible tax to impose.” That authority, sir, was Mr. G. A. Hay, M.P.C., who when he gave evidence before the Provincial Finances Commission said—

I think I have rightly appealed to Caesar, and when he endeavoured to-night to convince the House that this was an excellent tax, I would ask him—

I did not.

What has caused him to change his attitude, so that he is now able to defend a tax which he then said was the “worst possible tax.”

I said the same thing to-night.

The hon. Minister, when he dealt with the Bill, gave us a rapid survey of the attempts that had been made, from time to time, to deal with this provincial problem which was bequeathed to the Union as a whole by the Act of Union, and I think his starting point is one at which one could also commence if one desired to criticize or discuss his remarks. His starting point was the report of the so-called Baxter Commission published in 1923. The hon. the Minister dealt with the various recommendations which the commissioners suggested should be applied to deal with the difficulty in which provincial finances had become entangled. They suggested that the basis of the subsidy should be varied, that expenditure had become unduly extravagant and should be reduced, and that there should be a restriction of the taxing powers of provincial councils. So far as the restriction of taxing powers is concerned, the Minister proposes, by altering the existing law, to adopt, in part, one of these recommendations, but I rise to-night more particularly to deal with the third recommendation of the Baxter Commission, which it seems to me that the Minister has failed adequately to deal with in the Bill, and that is the attempt which these commissioners claim can and should be made to restrict expenditure on the part of the provinces. When this problem was first dealt with by the Commission appointed in 1913 by this House, it laid down a well-established principle of public finance, the achievement of which has since been the object of all treasurers of the Union. In the report of the first Financial Relations Commission, it is pointed out that one of the most salutary principles of a sound system of public finance is that the authority which is vested with the spending of money should be charged with the direct liability of raising either the whole or a substantial portion of the funds required to meet such expenditure. When in 1917 another commission (that presided over by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)) sat, they repeated that principle, and applied themselves to the consideration of the point, whether or not it had been properly observed by the Provincial Councils. The commission came to the conclusion that it had not, and when in 1922 a further commission (i.e., the Baxter Commission) was appointed we find them again pointing out that our difficulties in the Union were due to a failure to give effect to this particular principle, or in other words, the difficulty that has arisen is our failure to be able to place such a degree of financial responsibility upon provincial councils, as to insure that their expenditure would be regulated in direct proportion to the money they raised by taxing their constituents. The Baxter Commission made it perfectly clear that the £ for £ principle had proved entirely unworkable. It was an old-fashioned basis, well-recognizable in the formed educational policy of the Cape, and the Minister was correct in saying that nothing more than a shadow of it remained by 1922. The Commission pointed that if we were to overcome our peculiar difficulty, it was our duty to evolve some method of placing more direct financial responsibility on the shoulders of these councils. The question the Minister of Finance must have asked himself at the Durban Conference of Provincial Executives in November, 1924, was how far he could give effect to that recommendation, and so limit the liability of the Union, so that without unduly infringing on the functions of provincial councils, we could alleviate the burden which was growing year by year on the Union Treasury. I listened carefully to the Minister, wondering how far he would be able to tell us, on the discussions which then took place, any reference was made to this statement proved so conclusively in evidence before the Baxter Commission, namely, that there was provincial extravagance and waste. But not one word fell from the Minister on that Point. Not only must his proposals, to be effective, replace in some form that original constitutional check on expenditure which it was thought that the £ for £ principle would provide—not only must he make sure that there is something adequate to take its place, but the Minister has also to face the difficulty that the subsidy that he now proposes is a provisional subsidy—it was not recommended by the Baxter Commission as a final figure, but it remained provisional, thus making it the duty of the House to reconsider the whole question within the next two or three years, to see whether we are paying too much or too little. What has the Minister done to enable the House to judge whether we have adopted the proper figure in that respect? Our practice in the past has been to appoint commissions from time to time, and I wish to emphasize that the necessity for some such investigation must recur, perhaps very much sooner than the Minister thinks. If you look at the Estimates of the Cape Provincial Council for 1925-’26. you will find that while its revenue has been increased by £360,000 under the present proposals of the Minister, it is already right up to its limit of expenditure on that basis. This province is proceeding, as usual, to spend money gaily and the present Administrator is committing his successor right up to the limit, so that it is likely that the province will come back to this House with the story that the educational grant is quite inadequate, and we shall be asked to vote additional monies. When that time arrives we shall be in exactly the same position as we were in 1922. We shall want proper information. The Minister has failed in this Bill to make provision so that the House can, from year to year, know what the cost of education should be and how the money has been economically expended, having regard to the limits within which education should be treated as a burden of the State.

I have not accepted the principle that this is the cost of education—it is a grant towards education which may be more or less.

My point is that a demand for an increase is bound to come. Did not the Minister find it almost impossible from the facts available to him to decide what should be the proper figure to apply as the standard cost of education?

I accepted the calculation of the Baxter Commission.

Then the Minister must be with me because the Commission laid it down that they could not themselves regard this figure as final, but as subject to revision, and I ask the Minister, if we are in agreement, what means does he propose to test how far the sum is too much or too little.

It is not necessary.

I suggest it is necessary, and by what means are you to test it except by trying to arrive at some standard cost of education per child. When you take out these figures and institute a comparison—you will find the figures in the Baxter Report—does it not strike one as extraordinary that it is possible to give primary education in other countries at £7, £8 or £9 per child, and that in South Africa it rises as high as £17?

That is because of the sparse population.

That cannot be, as I hope to show presently, the explanation of this very high cost. I suggest to the Minister he should have an officer, described as an inspector or an inspector-general, whose business it will be to keep track of provincial council expenditure. The Controller and Auditor-General is not in the position, because of the statutory limits of his position, to enquire into the expenditure of provincial council. Similarly, each provincial auditor is circumscribed by the Ordinances and limited to no more than audit functions. There are things, however, upon which this House is entitled to have information from an officer appointed by the Union Government who should be placed in a position to find out how far there is extravagance and waste, so that when we come to test the adequacy of these grants we can feel we are on safe grounds. The Baxter report urged that the information in this respect from the provincial administrations must necessarily be insufficient. Their interests are entirely opposed to ours. Ours is the duty to find money, and theirs to spend it. We must see that we are not paying more for education than the country can reasonably afford. Their interest being to spend money it is hardly likely they will readily point out where we can save money. The hon. Minister might say, however, that I have talked about extravagance, but I have not pointed out specifically directions where there are extravagances. So far as the Baxter Report made allegations to that effect I would point out that the statements are in very general terms. That commission was not investigating expenditure in each individual province, but was dealing with the whole field of expenditure. To deal with the details of expenditure of all the provinces was a task beyond its power. I have endeavoured to establish for the Cape Province some standard test, and I invite the attention of the Minister to certain figures dealing with this test applied to the cost of education in this province, to show that there must be something rotten in the state of Denmark, and that extraordinary variations occur if the figures be taken district by district. It is possible to get at the actual cost of education per district. We have School Boards, 120 of them, who render annual reports, and it is easy to find the annual school board cost per child. The average cost in 1921 throughout the Union for the education of children was £19 per child as contrasted with £10 per child in 1913. In the Cape Province in 1921 the average cost was £17. If you go a little further and take these costs, district by district, you find in the Cape division, so far as School Board costs, i.e., teachers’ salaries, interest on buildings, cost of administration, but excluding boarding-house expenditure, which has to be ignored, and overhead expenditure in the central office (which can be put at a uniform figure), you find that the school board educates its children at a cost of £11 per annum. If you proceed, district by district, the moment you leave Cape Town and go 34 miles to Paarl, the cost rises to £18 per child. If you go to Stellensbosch it is £17, Malmesbury £13, but at Prieska and Garies it sinks to £11. The lowest cost in the province is £8 at Williston, and the highest is Mount Fletcher at £26. You would think it would be higher in sparsely populated parts, but it is not so, and the deduction from the figures bears out the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that we have had wasteful and extravagant expenditure in the establishing of high schools. We have been starting secondary schools where there were not sufficient pupils to warrant the expenditure. If a proper examination was made in the other provinces it would probably be found that the reasonable cost this country should expend in educating its children has been grossly exceeded, chiefly by the unwarranted building of high schools. I give these figures merely by way of illustration and this rather extraordinary inference emerges from them. Would it not be possible then by a proper and systematic enquiry by an official in a position to criticize policy, and not merely a controller or auditor-general, that we might at least get the information that must be required in two or three years’ time to decide whether or not we are right in paying £15 or £16 per child as an average cost of education. For my part I think the grant is too high and I think it should be possible by economy and proper methods which more or less should be uniform, to evolve within reasonable limits a system under which one would not find such a remarkable disparity as that to which I have referred. These observations of mine, no doubt, involve the criticism that the provincial councils are not in a position themselves to regulate their expenditure. I do ask hon. members who have had experience of provincial councils to rise and tell me whether they do not agree with me that the institution of executives divided on party lines is not an instrument which can adequately deal with questions of expansion or reduction of expenditure. You have executives meeting, perhaps, once a month and when your provincial councils meet you find that, although public accounts committees may be appointed, the opportunities that are afforded to them of getting to the bottom of these matters are so slender that it has not yet been shown anywhere that a public accounts committee in any province was able to point to the root causes of expenditure which has been complained of as extravagant. What I say, therefore, to the Minister is that a fault that can be found in his Bill is the omission to provide for an automatic check of some kind so as to bring home to the provinces what their own responsibility is in respect of finance. He put a question this afternoon to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) that if he felt that to be so what suggestion had he to make in order to spread out that responsibility upon all those who might be concerned. If I may make a suggestion, I think if it becomes necessary to tax under the schedule now proposed it should not be left to the provincial councils to do what they have done in the past and select a particular section of the community for taxation and so create in their minds a sense of injustice and unfairness. If they are to tax incomes and tax dividends they should at the same time be able to impose a tax upon persons, just as was proposed at that joint party conference, which sat in February, 1924, in the Cape Province, when the proposal was adopted that by means of a poll tax and other taxes spread on every form of property it would be brought home to the whole of the taxpayers in that province in a lesser or greater degree that they shared responsibility for the provision of the cost of education. It seems to me that would to some extent provide a better check than is proposed by the Minister in his Bill and I do say that the necessity of some sort of constitutional check upon this expenditure is absolutely essential. And I would add that the inclusion of item No. 11 in his schedule, i.e., an importers licence, which may be imposed directly upon a section of the people of a particular province, seems to me to be wrong. I would like, now, to pass away from this feature of the Bill and to refer very briefly to a point which the Minister referred to and that is his refusal to recognize the maximum limit of school ages between which the State itself bears responsibility for the education of children. The Minister said that in the circumstances of this country, where so many of its children left school at an age greater than 15, it would not be reasonable after the age of 15 to stop the grant which would be made in respect of their education. In that he runs counter to the whole of the expert opinion which has been collected on that particular point. The Second Education Commission recommended that the ages should be from 8 to 15 inclusive. In ignoring that recommendation b he explained that it would work harshly in the case of certain children, presumably in rural areas, in this country. That question is touched on very fully by these commissioners and they point out that it does not necessarily follow that in stopping this grant at fifteen you are interfering unfairly with the education of any particular section, because they say that under our system of education children, who after the age of 15 are carried forward into the secondary schools, are very often being trained in a way which makes not for their well-being, but for their actual undoing in life. They point out the effect of this limit on the grant will be to take these children—to the great majority of whom secondary education can never be of any value—away from the primary and secondary schools, and either place them for training in industry or secure to them vocational training from which they can derive great benefit. I would ask the Minister whether he feels the few cases of hardship which may arise in rural areas really outweigh the recommendations of these practical educationists. One other point I would like to refer to is section 16 of the Bill, whereby the Minister proceeds to repeal section 2 of the Act passed early in March, 1924, with reference to the scale of salaries of teachers. I am glad to see he has acted on the recommendation I made last August, to put the Bill in its legal aspect upon a proper footing. Putting this small point on one side, in deciding to restore to the provinces the sole right to determine the scales of teachers’ salaries, the Minister is guilty of a grave inconsistency, because in the case of native education, which is dealt with in paragraph 3. he reserves to the central authority the right to fix the scales of salaries for native teachers. That seems to be rather remarkable, and indicates that as far as they are concerned, it is agreed that there should be a standardization of salaries. I would like to point out to the Minister that the teachers themselves believe that the present system is wholly unsatisfactory. This is what the Federated Council of Teachers’ Associations! of South Africa said early last year—

I can quite understand that the Minister, in the face of what took place in March of last year found it difficult to recognize the principle laid down in the Financial Relations Act of 1924, but why go to the other extreme? Why should he not make a maximum and minimum determinable solely by the Public Service Commission, the same as in the other services? Why, in order to repeal this particular section, if members feel it obnoxious, should we go back to a system which has proved so wholly unsatisfactory? I need not elaborate the point that it was unsatisfactory. I think when you find that the teachers themselves are in agreement on that point, it is unnecessary to point out as well that every inter-provincial conference and every provincial executive committee and every administrator has asked that the resulting competition for teachers should be done away with. But the Minister in his anxiety to redeem pledges not unconnected with the events of June, 1924, goes to an extreme which cannot be justified. In regard to income tax, time will not allow me to discuss the principle whether or not an income tax is a proper form of provincial taxation but I would draw his attention to the fact that the Bill makes a reference to taxable income which is unintelligible in this Bill, because it is not connected up with any Act where the phrase is defined. He contemplates also a tax on dividends, while he tells us that on the income tax to be introduced there will be abolished the chapter in the present law relating to dividends. But there is something more important. If each province may levy a sur-tax on the income tax, how is this to be determined in each province? It was put to the Minister to-day that a province should only be entitled to tax on the proportion of income earned in that province, but by what do you test whether or not it has been earned in that province? Take the case of a barrister who earns income both in Pretoria and Bloemfontein. Would it be said that he earns his income where he resides? Is it to be levied where the man lives, or where he carries on his business? Because it might be possible for a provincial council to say that where a taxpayer resides there he shall be deemed to earn the whole of his income. Wherever he may carry on his income-producing operations. Suppose that were done by provincial ordinance in the Transvaal, and a man be deemed in law to earn the whole of his income in that province and be sur-taxed 20 per cent? What is to be his position if a similar enactment is passed in the Cape? My point is that I think the Minister in order to prevent over-lapping and injustice should by means of some method of moderation in the application of this Bill, should have some right to a say in the machinery employed by the province in order that such might not occur. Another point is that there is no provision whatever for enforcing those provisions with reference to secrecy in applying the income tax for provincial council purposes.

You do not want me to frame their income tax legislation for them in advance. Leave them something to do.

We do not want them to do it badly, and I think the Minister will agree that to allow them to have access to this particular source of revenue is a very bad principle, and should not be extended, as it will create undue irritation.

They have it to-day in the Transvaal and Free State.

In the Free State it is in the form of an education tax, but the Minister has now restricted these powers, so it seems almost inevitable that there must be sur-tax in Natal at once. The Minister has made no provision for secrecy—

I do not intend doing it for them. Leave it to them.

If the Minister cannot agree with me that there is room for injustice and for breach of the principle of secrecy nothing will convince him at all. But I do hope that in defining this power in favour of provincial councils the Minister will insist upon the assessment papers for income tax being kept secret in the same way as they are by the Union collectors of taxes. Turning to the provision for town-planning, I think that is a step in the right direction, even although the Minister has introduced the unusual principle of making the power retrospective, but I would like to have an assurance that no authority will be given to provincial councils to interfere with the conditions upon which sub-divisional townships may have been laid out in the past. There are many cases where, in particular townships, Certain classes of persons may not own land and certain kinds of businesses may not be carried on, and it is important that rights in that respect should not be over-ridden by any provincial legislation. The Minister has gone a step further, however, than in any provincial legislation that I know of, for he has given the provincial councils the right to demand land, not only for school purposes (as they can do in the Cape, at any rate at present), but also for any public purpose. Some of this legislation proceeds from the fact that there was recently litigation in the Cape Province, where there has been put forward the extraordinary proposition that a school board can claim in a township, laid out 20 years ago, that it was entitled to receive two acres for school purposes, although it was not intended to build a school on the land at all, nor indeed could a school be built there, the intention of the authorities being to sell the ground and apply the proceeds elsewhere.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time limit has expired.

I have a definite mandate from my electors in connection with the matter which is now before the House and in connection with the Bill and I wish to commence at once by expressing my gratitude for what the hon. Minister has done in connection with this Bill in connection with the education of natives. The great grievance that we had in the Transvaal in connection with this matter was the result of the legislation which was pressed through the House by the former Government, namely, Act 5 of 1921, and again Act 5 of 1922, by which we were forced in the Transvaal every year to pay more than £45,000 for native education, while at the same time all the taxes that we could levy and partly did lay on natives were taken away and, according to the same Act, may not be levied again. We in the Transvaal feel that while so many white children are going about without education through lack of money it was unfair that we had to pay £45,000 and more—because the law stipulated that it would become more every year in proportion to the increase in the number of native children going to school—for the native education, where the white taxpayers were already so heavily taxed. I, therefore, notice with pleasure that in section 3 the hon. Minister of Finance has altered that point so that in any case, although native education is controlled by the provincial council, the funds thereof will come from the natives themselves and, I am sure, that I speak on behalf of the greatest portion of the Transvaal population when I congratulate the hon. Minister upon the solution which he has found of this difficult matter. Then there is another point in connection with natives on which I wish shortly to dwell. In accordance with Act No. 5 of 1922 there is a provision in force which says that no direct tax may be levied upon the persons or upon certain properties of natives. Now, there was talk in the Transvaal of the introduction of a wheel tax in order to get funds for education. It was necessary to cover the large expenditure which the Transvaal had to get together for the education of natives. But the difficulty that was felt was that the tax would fall on the whites, because Act 5 of 1922 section 9 (d) provides that natives in that case must be exempted. I now ask if it is the case that if the wheel tax is imposed in any province natives will not fall under it, and that it will only hit whites. That would be unfair. We all know that the natives make much more use of the road than the whites. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has spoken about the employers tax. He has correctly treated the history of the employers tax and rightly remarked that the tax was nothing else than an emergency tax. From all sides the former Government squeezed our provincial council and the only chance we had of getting relief was by means of the employers tax. We are all agreed on it that it is an undesirable tax, but we were forced by necessity to levy the tax to provide for the education of our children. Now the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has clearly so read the Bill that the employers tax is abolished, but I read something else in the Bill. The hon. Minister will certainly be able to tell us what the proper view is. But if the employers tax is not abolished then I hope the hon. Minister will try to abolish the tax, and just give us back that for which the tax was substituted, namely, tax on the profits of the gold mines. That is what we had but it was taken from us by Act 5 of 1921 and Act 5 of 1922. I will, with the greatest pleasure and also confidence, leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Minister especially, because the tax on the profits of the gold mines did not come from South Africa but from England. I would like briefly to make this clear. According to the Finance Act of England the tax which we in the Transvaal levied in the form of a tax on profits of the gold mines was deducted from the tax which the companies had to pay in England in taxation. Now, I do not at all grudge England a good revenue because I gather that they require it very much there. The payment to America makes a large revenue necessary, but I still think in the first place of our own revenue and our own treasury and sources of income. Therefore, I say that the employers tax must be abolished, and the tax on gold mining profits should again be put in its place. That is the best that can be done, not only for the Transvaal, but in the interests of the whole country. Then there is something which has disappointed me in the new Bill. The great objection with regard to provincial councils is that no control actually exists over the administrators. We have heard here that the administrators are not responsible to the Government and we have seen that in practice the administrator is not responsible to the people. We experienced this in the Transvaal.

The hon. member cannot, I think, now discuss the position of administrators.

Then I will not go further into it. I only wish to plead for the sound relationship between the State and the provincial councils. I will then only add that on behalf of the voters in my constituency I want to thank the Minister heartily for the step in advance which he has made in this Bill. By some members opposite the cry has been repeated that the provincial councils should be abolished. I just want to mention the old proverb that action and reaction are equal and opposite, and if we commence with the shouting for the abolition of provincial councils then we must be prepared that the consequences will be that there will be propaganda for the federal system. Hon. members must consider this. If they want to abolish the provincial council then they must be prepared to come from the unitary to the federal system. Otherwise they should remain quiet. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) said that he was opposed to the Transvaal Provincial Council because it was a Pact Government.

Yes.

The hon. member did not appreciate that he was thereby giving his own party a terrible slap in the face, because the provincial council in the Transvaal is not a Pact Government but a South African Party Government. The hon. member can now from this distance see what the result of a South African Party Government is, and then he can also possibly understand a little better what it meant when he sat here as a supporter of the former Government. The hon. member is much older than I, but I hope he will still accept my advice to first test and investigate a matter well in the future before he gives his own party such a slap in the face.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) contended that the large number of secondary schools in the country districts was evidence of extravagance. We take it, and I am sure the majority of the population, farmers and others, in sparsely populated country districts feel it also, that there is no reason whatever why there should be restrictions in the secondary schools of those districts. We believe it is necessary to bring education to the child, and not to place it where it cannot reach it. I submit that the more we spend on that secondary education the better it is, not only for those who are receiving it, but for the country as a whole. What is most desirable for this country, as for other parts of the world, is to have a highly educated population. Unless a non-restrictive policy is carried into effect in the country districts we should be acting in a manner prejudicial to the population of the country districts, and I am sure that even hon. members of the South African Party, who claim to be the friends of the farmers, would subscribe to this view in regard to this view of secondary education. We believe that no money spent on secondary education is wasted. As far as any extravagance is concerned no one on these benches would resent the fullest possible enquiry, but we do not want an enquiry with the object behind it of curtailing expenditure, not because it is extravagant, but because they want to spend less and less on education. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) dealt with the desirability of unification in this country. That policy of the unification of South Africa has been pursued throughout by the hon. member and by many members of the South African Party. I believed in 1909 that the establishment of provincial councils was the right course. After the experience of the last few years I have come to the conclusion that South Africa, if it wishes to satisfy the needs of the whole country, will have to travel more and more in the direction of federalism. After all, in connection with that matter, we have to look forward to the day when the Union of South Africa will probably expand very considerably, and when you may have Rhodesia and South-West Africa as partners in the Union of South Africa, and you will have to have some provincial government for these countries, and I believe that is coming much more rapidly than it would have come under the South African party Government. I believe it is imperative, in order to encourage these portions, to pursue a policy which will develop the country more on federal lines than has been the case in the past. In dealing with this question, we have to go back to the position as it existed in 1910. When the provincial council system was instituted in South Africa, we had two provinces in the Union which were by no means enamoured of the policy of Union. In Natal, I think, there was a certain amount of nervousness on racial grounds, and they were also afraid that education would suffer, and I believe the Free State thought that, through undue centralization, there would be an interference with them in so far as their development and ideas of education were concerned, and it was found necessary, as a sort of compromise, in order to satisfy these two provinces, to establish this provincial council system, to secure to the provinces the right to tax, and of self-government in other directions. At this point one might criticize justly the policy that has been pursued under which, from the day the provincial councils were established, there has been an insidious policy and an attempt on the part of the Government of this country, until recently, to try to get rid of those provincial councils. We know there are two methods of killing anyone, the direct frontal attack, which they have never indulged in, and the cool callous cynical method of gradually poisoning an institution or an individual, which was pursued by the S.A. party. From the day Union was established, the provincial councils have never been allowed to function according to the Act of Union to the fullest possible extent, and for them to criticize the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) for suggesting that the provincial councils would be an instrument for developing South Africa and securing greater prosperity, is unjustified. We are entitled to assume that had the provincial councils been given the full authority that the Act of Union contemplated, the authority for borrowing money for capital expenditure in terms of the Act of Union, instead of the provincial councils being beggared from time to time, we should have had development generally in these provinces. Had that been done, I believe the idea of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) would have been justified, and that they would have been a source of strength to the country. I hope that the present Government will not come forward with a policy of insidious attacks on the provincial councils, but will say definitely that they stand not only for perpetuating the councils but for giving them the fullest chance, so that the various provinces shall have full liberty to regulate their own local affairs. The provincial councils have been subjected to various kinds of attack. We have been told that one of the evils of the system was their extravagance, and that they were obtaining revenue for the raising of which they are not responsible. I wonder if hon. members opposite suggest that the officials and executive committees of the provincial councils, and the administrators whom they have appointed so far, have flagrantly gone in for a policy of extravagance? Surely they do not suggest that the present administrators of the Transvaal and the Cape, and Mr. Robertson, who, unfortunately, lost his position in the fight he made at the request of his party, have been deliberately extravagant and wasteful? If they don’t want to suggest this, then the charge of extravagance is unjustified and unfair. Another charge against the councils has been that they have been incurring deficits. The councils have been in a rather unfortunate position as compared with the central authority, which could impose taxation without restriction, except that it must not tax its wealthy friends—not friends in an invidious sense but in the sense that their outlook is the same as that of the S.A. party and on the principle that it is a good job for pals not to impose taxation on them but on the poor. The S.A. party has said to the provincial councils—

Having erected these ring fences they told the provincial councils—

I have in front of me a comparative summary issued from 1914-15 to 1923-24, of the expenditure by the Union Government from revenue, excluding railways and harbours, and during the whole period the South African Party and the Unionist Party have been in control, and we find during that period the expenditure had increased from £14,000,000 to £29,000,000 per annum. That was their extravagance, and their method of increasing expenditure. They have more than doubled the expenditure of the Union, and then they talk of the extravagance and expenditure of the provinces. Above that they have left a legacy to the present Government of quite a large amount of money in accumulated deficits, and then these people accuse the provinces of extravagance. Their whole policy has been directed towards trying to freeze out the provincial councils and make them unpopular, so that whilst they had not the courage to make a frontal attack to abolish them, they were in hopes, by these devious methods, to make them so unpopular that the people would clamour for their abolition. They have another object in their mind. We had quite a number of exclamations from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who asked why did not we impose the land tax. It is perfectly true one of the objects they had in view, in the manner they dealt with the provincial councils, was to force them to impose the land tax, which they knew would be unpopular, and which they knew would lead to the suicide of the provincial councils. I am not afraid of talking about the land tax. I think in the long run the farmers would find the land tax preferable to the many other taxes they have had to pay. Speaking as a member of the Labour Party, as an avowed believer in the socialistic objective, I believe that land taxation is not a matter worth fighting about. I believe it is not a very desirable source of revenue, for these reasons, because the chief object of the land tax is to break up land to provide, so that instead of having a handful of people controlling the land, it shall by its being broken up be owned by hundreds of thousands of little landowners. I am not in favour of that, because, instead of having a few wealthy people you would create thousands of little landowners, mostly in the grip of banks and middlemen, who would be made the scapegoats the moment we forced a policy of national ownership instead of private ownership. There would be thousands of people who would resist it, because they think it would be a wonderful position to have a little land of their own, and would act as the bulwark of the larger people who are exploiting them. As a socialist I am not keen on it, and I am glad, from that point of view, that the provincial councils have not imposed a land tax, because I think it would not be a satisfactory method of taxation from a purely socialist point of view.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned, to be resumed tomorrow.