I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he is going to lay on the Table the report of the commission which has been sitting for some time and has now handed in its report, the Departmental Commission on Railway Workshops?

The report has just been received and is now being translated, and the whole matter is under the consideration of the Government.

Yes, but when are we going to have it? You surely are not going to take all the time to consider the report and not lay it on the Table?

I have already said that the report is now being translated, and, of course, until such time as it is translated it cannot be laid on the Table.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

Agreed to.

May I ask the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation under rule 66 of the Standing Orders. Under this rule a member may explain matters of a personal nature. I want to make a personal explanation against certain allegations on Friday last.

I object. If the hon. member had been in the House on Friday night he could have spoken. He will have an opportunity later of making a statement.

If objection is taken, cannot the House decide?

No; indulgence must be unanimous.

They are afraid to hear the explanation.

When the House rose last night I was dealing with the position taken up by the South African party Government, and I was endeavouring to show that the whole attitude was one of taking away the rights of the provincial councils. If the proposals of the Baxter report had been carried into effect they would have further curtailed the powers and rights of the provincial councils. Now a genuine attempt is being made to enable provincial councils to function in the proper manner—

It is absolutely impossible for Hansard to report the speech of the hon. member while there is so much talking going on at the other end.

I want to say, however, that while we are very gratified at this, I very much regret that the hon. Minister in his proposals qualifies and limits the powers to be given to the provincial councils; under sub-section 7, of section 2 of the Bill, it is provided that the amount of revenue derived by the provincial councils from employers tax in respect of the mining industry will be deducted from the educational subsidy. The effect of that in the Transvaal is that while nominally the Bill empowers the provincial council there to impose the employers tax, it really means that every attempt is being made to discourage them from imposing that tax. When the Transvaal Provincial Council imposed the gold profits tax on the mining industry, the controllers of the industry immediately went to the courts to contest that tax. It was held by the Appellate Court that the provincial council was right in imposing the tax. The late Government went to the provincial executive and offered them a bribe of £250,000 to remove that tax for the benefit of their friends. That was their policy.

A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it competent for any member of this House to allege that a bribe was given by the late Government?

I do not think the hon. member is out of order.

The provincial executive replied to the late Government—

“But,” said the executive, “we need money for capital expenditure for the development of our province, and we would be glad to borrow this £250,000 for development purposes.” And then that Government, which had the money to protect its friends, turned round and said: We can only lend you that money for the protection of our friends, but not for capital expenditure on the development of the Transvaal, and the offer of £250,000 was taken away. The friends of the Government came to them and said, this proposal having been defeated, we must get some other means of protection, and the Government hurriedly put through a Bill in this House to amend the Act of Union and to make away from the provincial authorities in the Transvaal the right to tax the mining companies. We have heard a good deal about ‘jobs for pals,” but I never heard of such a clear case, not only of a “job for pals,” but also of a gift for pals, as this case of the South African party in respect of the mining industry. That forced the provincial executive to have recourse to some other sources of revenue, and they had to resort to an employers tax. Criticism has been levelled against that tax. I do not think it is a scientific tax, but, under the circumstances, I am not prepared to say that the provincial council was not justified in imposing that tax. And further, in essence, it is not an unjust tax; because, after all, we have to accept this position, that no individual, however brilliant, is able by himself to amass a fortune—by his own efforts and energy under our present system—and as a person can only make profits out of the energies of others, it is right that some portion of that profit should be demanded by the State for the development of the country. I can see no injustice in that. The Baxter report was against that tax, and I am sorry that the Minister, in sub-section (7) of section 2 of the Bill, has made a friendly gesture to the mines, and he has accepted the Baxter report on this tax, without saying so in so many words! The effect will be that the provincial council in the Transvaal will not be able effectively to apply that tax; because it is of no benefit to them and they will have to look to other sources of revenue to meet the deficit on education. I also wish to refer to the education subsidy. It is obvious, from the agitation that has been going on in the Transvaal—since 1914—when the Labour party imposed upon the Transvaal free primary and secondary education—to do away with this free education, that the South African party and Unionist party have been against it, and the Baxter report clearly was also against it. The reason for such opposition to free secondary education is to be found in the fact that the plutocracy of South Africa, like that in other parts of the world, have begun to realize that under free secondary education the children of the poor and struggling people are able to encroach upon the preserves of the wealthy man, and they said, that is bad. The professions and the civil service of the country, according to them, should be reserved for the children of the wealthy man, and—

That wonderful philosophy that is reflected in the well-known couplet—

They suddenly found that that philosophy was breaking down, and carried on an agitation against this free education; and the provisions of the Bill in respect of the education subsidy, whether unconsciously or not, are helping them to the extent that, as the Minister has already admitted, the £16 7s. 6d. which is recommended under the Bill is not really adequate to meet the additional requirements of the education of the children, and it will mean that as far as the Transvaal is concerned, there will be a continued agitation for the imposition of school fees, and to that extent a great injury will be done to the children of the Transvaal and, incidentally, to the other provinces, who, before long, would have followed the Transvaal example. I hope the Minister will, even in the committee stage, seriously reconsider these two provisions and consider the desirability of doing away with the restriction in the employers tax and of altering the subsidy so that nothing shall be done to restrict the attendance of the children in the schools. I know the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) told us that it is a waste of money to send a child to a secondary school if he cannot pass the sixth standard at the age of 16, but my reply is that all children are not precocious and cannot advance at the same pace. The other day, we had the example quoted in the British House of Commons, of Mr. Churchill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Harrow school. Until the age of 14, he was one of the most backward children in that school. Had he been dependent on free secondary education, according to the South African party, Mr. Churchill would never have had an opportunity of going to a free school. If he had been a child of working parents, he would probably have been forced to go into a trade or joined the ranks of the unemployed. Every opportunity must be given to every child. I submit that the principle of free primary and secondary education is one of the dearest that is cherished by the people of the Transvaal, and I am sure that in this protest I not only have the support of hon. members from the Transvaal, Nationalist as well as Labour, but it is a protest in which I am voicing the views of the masses of the people in the Transvaal, who, after all, are of greater importance than even the members in this House.

I do not intend to take up very much time of the House on this particular occasion, but I feel it is necessary that I should say something in connection with this Bill, as it considerably affects a great many of my constituents, and generally the people in Natal. I would like to take this opportunity of complimenting the Minister—I think it is only fair we should do so when we get a chance—on the very full, clear and careful statement he made when he submitted this Bill to the House on its second reading. I recognize in it an earnest attempt on the part of the Minister and the Government to deal as effectively as possible under present circumstances with this very difficult question. In the 1924 session, the late Government also brought in a Financial Relations Bill, and I was pleased in so far as it had gone one step in the direction of taking up some of the recommendations of the Baxter report; but I thought it did not go far enough and said so, and I am pleased to know that this Minister has gone a step further than the late Government did in dealing with this very thorny question. The question has been raised because of complaints that the provincial councils have not carried out the intentions of those who brought them into existence—viz., the National Convention. The greatest charge against them is that of extravagance. I think that to some extent that is justified, but I object very strongly to the system being condemned as a whole, without giving consideration to those provinces which have dealt with the matter in a very fair and proper way. I refer to the smaller provinces of the Free State and Natal. They are included in the condemnation measured out to the Transvaal and the Cape, and they do not get credit for the good work they have done. As regards Natal, I claim that it has made a real effort to carry out the provincial system as it was intended to be carried out by the National Convention—in fact, Natal has come out very well. The reason Natal has done so well is that to a large extent it has kept party politics out of the provincial council, although it is true that of late years the Labour party has forced party politics on the council, but that does not affect the position of the council nor influence its policy to any great extent. The Natal Provincial Council has also worked very economically and has a deficit of only £31,000; which shows that it has been working on the right lines. It is true that in connection with educational matters more money has been spent that was absolutely necessary, but we were all extravagant during the war period, and it is not to be wondered at if sometimes the provincial councils went over the mark. I claim that under these circumstances Natal is quite satisfied with the work of its provincial council, and has not any intention whatever of letting it go at the present time. I am satisfied that if the Transvaal had kept party politics out of its provincial council it would not be in the mess it is now, and if the Cape had kept a firmer hand on its Administrator it also would be in a better position than it is to-day. I wish to protest against the frequent attacks, especially by Cape Town members, on the subsidies of £100,000 which were given to the Free State and Natal in connection with their financial affairs. We often hear that these subsidies should not be given, but we who know why the subsidies were made, realize that the two provinces were entitled to them. Natal, at any rate, was absolutely solvent when it went into Union, and it was in a very comfortable position; its railways were paying handsomely, and its budgets showed good surpluses, but its main revenues were taken away, only a few being left. It was found that these few revenues would not meet the expenditure of the new provincial administrations, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that the Free State and Natal should get these subsidies in order to bring them out. But what was the position of the Cape at the time of Union? It had a debt of £52,000,000. of which one-quarter (£13,000,000) was non-reproductive. The loss on the Cape railways and harbours had reached £616,000, deficiency in revenue £500,000, and interest on non-productive debt £419,000, making a total deficiency of £1,535,000. In addition the income tax and patent medicine tax of the Cape, which brought m a total of £300,000, were remitted. Immediately after Union there was a large reduction of railway rates, of which the Cape got the greatest benefit. Under the Financial Relations Act of 1913 the Cape got another concession, which amounted to £160,000. So that altogether the Cape got relief to the extent of over £2,000,000 at the time of Union. The deficits in connection with the railways in the Cape have been going on ever since Union, and by this time must amount to a very considerable sum, but we cannot get the exact figures from the Railway Administration. In view of these facts, I hope we shall hear less fault-finding with the small subsidies given to the Free State and Natal, both of whom get a good deal less than they were entitled to. Coming to the Bill, I approve of the abandonment of the £ for £ principle in the way of subsidies, which caused a great deal of over expenditure by the provincial councils. Now the subsidy is based on the school attendance, but I am not quite clear why the Natal ratio is fixed at less than that of the other provinces. It seems to me that the cost of education in Natal is just about as high as it is in any of the other provinces. The Minister says the ratio is based on the lower cost of living in Natal, but that is not borne out by figures. The public servants in Natal recently stated that they could prove that the cost of living was higher in Natal than in other parts, even in the Transvaal, and they so proved their case that the Government was obliged to give them a local allowance. I hope it will be possible to give consideration to that. I don’t agree with the Minister in allowing the provinces to have the poll and income taxes, nor the employers tax, nor the importers’ licences. I think it would have been better to keep them away from the provincial councils. In any case, I don’t think the Natal Provincial Council will take advantage of them, though they are a temptation to the provincial councillors to make use of them, even when they are not really necessary. I am sorry the Minister has departed from the Bill brought in by the late Government with regard to teachers’ salaries. It was a good thing for teachers and for education that a uniform scale should have been laid down for the Union so as not to have had the competition amongst the provinces. It seems to me that the teachers made a mistake in objecting to it, and they would have been safer and better under the Union scale than under the provincial scales. I think the imposition on Natal of schoolteachers’ pensions is not quite fair. At the time of Union it was arranged with the different provinces that the Union should take over, not only their assets, but also their liabilities, and these teachers’ pensions were a liability on the Natal Government. When the Union Government took office it took over this liability. For many years it has been acknowledged and paid by them. It is true that only recently they began to restrict it, and said that no more applications under the Act would be allowed, but yet they took all responsibility for the pensions granted under the Act. Now the Minister has thrown them on to the shoulders of the provincial council. I don’t think Natal will be satisfied with that arrangement. Now I come to the trade and occupation licences which are to be taken away from the municipalities and handed over to the provincial administration. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) pointed out how this had been brought about, how the executive of the provincial council and the Minister met in conclave at Durban and came to an understanding under which they agree d to take away from the municipality of Durban, licence fees to the extent of about £40,000 a year without giving anything in return and without consulting that municipality. It looks strange that two bodies should meet together, both wanting money, and come to the conclusion that in order to get it they must take the money from somebody else’s pocket without that party being represented or consulted. I hope the Minister will withdraw the clauses in connection with the licences to be taken away from the municipalities and allow the provincial councils and the municipalities to thrash the matter out between themselves. If he does that I believe they will be able to come to an amicable arrangement with each other. At the present time Durban provides two-thirds of the collected revenue of the provincial council of Natal. If this Bill is passed it will raise the contribution up to 80 per cent. of the collected revenue. That is a terrible burden for one town to bear. I think you will agree that it is carrying the thing too far, and Durban ought to get some relief. On the other hand, how does Durban treat the Government? Very generously indeed. At the present time the Government have property, buildings and land in Durban to the value of £1,500,000, on which no rates are paid whatever. That is a serious handicap in connection with the administration of the municipality. Not only that, but they get the advantages of the municipal services for a nominal sum. On the other hand, the Government have not the slightest hesitation, when they want a site, in asking the corporation to give them a site free. The Government have 21¼ acres granted free by the corporation, the value of which is £28,850. Under the circumstances Durban ought to be very reasonably and leniently dealt with. If the Government cannot be generous, it might at least be just. The Natal people are desirous that a commission should be appointed to go into these matters and come to an equitable arrangement between the Government and the municipality, as to rating and other charges. I should like to refer in a few words to the question of the abolition of the provincial councils. The Minister said in his speech that this Bill was the only alternative to abolition, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said it was their last chance. There are other people in the country besides the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and they may have a different opinion, and they should have a say before the matter is finally settled. Natal does not, by any means, share the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). I was glad to hear the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) say that he does not think the majority of the Cape are in favour of the abolition of provincial councils, certainly not so far as the Eastern Province is concerned. I don’t think these provincial councils have had a fair chance. They have never had a definite settled income to work upon and have been working in the dark to some extent. I hope they will all now settle down to a better style of economy than in the past. We have it given as one of the reasons for the abolition of provincial councils, that it would lead to economy in administration. We had the same thing said in Natal before Union, that once we had one Parliament and one administration, the cost of administration would go down considerably, but since Union the cost of administration has gone up nearly three times more than it was in 1910. We cannot do without the provincial councils. It is impossible for this Parliament to deal with the matters the provincial councils have been dealing with. At the present time if you want any Bill or ordinance put through, you have your own people who understand the position. They examine the thing on the spot, and put through all ordinances in a few days, giving you what you want. If you had no provincial council you will have to bring the matter to Cape Town and deal with people who do not understand the position, and go to an enormous expense to get your ordinances put through. They may be thrown out. We have not come to the stage when we can do without the provincial councils and so far as Natal is concerned it is either the provincial councils or federation.

I do not wish to go over the same ground again that other members have covered, but I just want to say a few words with reference to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said. He accused the Cape Provincial Council in his speech yesterday that it was not courageous enough to levy taxation, and that in consequence the large deficit has been accumulated. For the benefit of hon. members opposite—their memory seems to be a bit short—I just wish shortly to mention the history of the financial position of the Cape Province. I hope that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will also pay a little attention to it. Hon. members will remember that when the provincial councils were created there were 79.835 children in the schools and 61.000 outside, and do not hon. members remember that the task of the provincial council was to get into the schools the children who were outside walking around the countryside? A great injustice was done to those children of the countryside by the old Cape Government, and the provincial council had to try to rectify it as much as possible And do not hon. members opposite remember that before the South African party Government commenced the policy of retrenchment at the cost of the provincial councils—because the Government itself did not have the courage to impose the necessary taxation—the Provincial Council of the Cape Province had a large surplus every year? For the information of hon. members, I will just mention the figures: In 1913-’14 the surplus was £123,000; 1914-’15, £125,000; 1915-’16, £185,000; 1916-’17, £154,000; 1917-18, £142,000; 1918-19, £199,000; 1919-’20, £345,000; and in 1920-’21, £328,000. But in 1921 Mr. Burton came and, as he called it, knee-haltered the Administrator of the Cape Province and reduced the subsidy from 15 to 5 per cent. In 1922 he went further, and he reduced it by one-tenth and the 5 per cent. be brought down to 3 per cent. From that moment the difficulties of the Cape Province began. I shall now just mention what the deficits have been since that time. In 1902 the deficit was £76,000.

Except the shortage which was taken over from the old Cape Government.

Yes. In 1922 the deficit in round numbers was £76,000, but the loss in subsidies which we had to sustain under the Financial Relations Act of 1917 was £156,000. In 1922-’23 the deficit was £42,429. The loss in subsidies £321,000, and in 1923-’24 there was a deficit of £182,000, but the loss in subsidies was no less than £242,000. In 1924-’25 the deficit was £400,000 and the loss in subsidies in consequence of the steps taken by the former Government £373,000. When one adds up these deficits you arrive at the amount of £1,088,896, and the losses which were suffered in consequence of the unfair actions of the previous Government amounted to £1,095,000. This shows what the economy of Mr. Burton meant to the Cape Province. Mr. Burton did not have the courage to impose the taxes himself to make his Budget balance, but he knee-haltered the provincial councils. Hon. members opposite who talk of extravagance should consider these figures a little. I admit that here and there perhaps there was a little waste, but hon. members opposite who then assisted in wasting millions of pounds have surely the very least right to accuse the provincial councils of extravagance. I think that the provincial council in the Cape Province has done very useful work for the children in the country, and I want to make use of this opportunity to heartily thank the Administrator for what he has done for the children of that province. Hon. members opposite will perhaps ask why we as a provincial Council did not impose more taxation. Well, in 1922, when we commenced to have deficits, the Administrator of the Cape, together with the executive committee, drew up a scale of taxation for the provincial council and notified the council that in consequence of the cutting retrenchment of the Government they would be obliged to levy taxation or to send the children back to the farms. The provincial council of the Cape Province then decided that it was willing to pay the tax for the education of the children. But the executive committee first went to see the then Prime Minister to ask if he could not grant a tax to the provincial council. Then the Prime Minister—the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will remember this—gave the promise to grant us a sales tax. Then the Administrator withdrew his taxation proposals. In the meantime the Chamber of Commerce in Cape Town commenced to agitate with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister withdrew his promise. And what did he propose? He gave us instead thereof the right to enter into a loan with the reserve bank. Subsequently we were again given the promise that we should have the sales tax, not on wholesale but on retail sales. But the Chambers of Commerce throughout the whole country opposed this, and the Prime Minister again withdrew his promise. In that way the deficits accumulated. I only mention these matters to show what a relief it was to us and why the farmers on the countryside were so happy when the South African party Government disappeared. If we had not obtained the victory, what would the position then have been? The South African party Government had stated that it approved the principles of the Baxter report and the taxes of the provincial councils would have been removed and the provincial councils would only have retained the land tax. The countryside understand to-day what the victory of the Nationalist party means to it. We are glad of the new Bill of the Minister of Finance. Personally, I am not altogether satisfied with it, and one thing with which I cannot agree with is that the turnover tax upon which the Chambers of Commerce counted so much have been taken away, while the provincial councils in the future will still be able to levy the land tax. But I can really not see why hon. members opposite do not accept this Bill with both hands. The only people who may not be entirely satisfied are possibly our farmers. I know that the other provinces do not take so much interest in the land tax. They do not yet know that tax, I think, but as to the Cape Province, I wish to point out that in 1918, by means of the steam-roller majority of the South African party, the land tax was imposed in the Cape Province, although the Nationalists opposed it inch by inch. Since 1918 that source of taxation has already produced £1,565,114. If I add thereto all the licensing taxes with the turnover tax, only the sum of £1.780.243 was produced, and then hon. members will understand why there is a section of the population who have a grievance against the land tax. But I will not enlarge further on this. The Minister of Finance negotiated with the members of the executive committee and they approved of it.

It is not a tax on farmers alone but on landowners.

Very well, call it land-owners. How many landowners are there who are not farmers? There is another matter that I would especially like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister of Finance. It is something about which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has shown great anxiety. I do not know why. Let me tell the hon. member that the Cape members are quite capable of looking after the interests of our province.

Yes, I am for the whole Union, that is why I do not rob you.

It is something which is of benefit to the Transvaal. It is not robbery, just as little as the turnover tax is robbery, but the auctioneers’ tax presses very heavily on our farmers. We have our market for cattle in Johannesburg, and we there pay the turnover tax by which we practically pay a direct tax for the education of the Transvaal children.

Why don’t you cut out the market?

The hon. member also seems to have been infected by his Natal friends and also commences talking about secession. Then there is still a matter of great importance to our farmers, and that is the eradication of noxious weeds. In accordance with this Bill the administration thereof will still remain in the hands of the provincial authorities. In my opinion the eradication of noxious weeds is no longer a provincial matter, but has become a national matter. The divisional councils congress of the Cape Province passed a resolution to see that the matter should be transferred to the Union Government, because that is the best way of combating the evil. The police can then have an eye to it and the expenses will not be great. I think that will operate much more effectively.

Why?

Because the eradication of noxious weeds is made into a farce by the divisional councils. Take my division. It is situated on the bank of the Orange River. If the people eradicate that weed, what good will it do if on the opposite side, a little higher up, it grows luxuriantly? This matter must be tackled, otherwise some of our very best ground will be spoilt by noxious weeds. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who was then Minister of Agriculture, is deserving of praise for his good deeds, but in this respect I think he neglected his duty, and the noxious weeds are now practically spread over the whole country. I will close by supporting what has been said by opposite members on this side, namely, that we cannot be sufficiently thankful that the South African party Government has disappeared from the Government benches. We expect that South-West Africa and Rhodesia will one day join the Union. If under those circumstances we had no provincial councils, it would be impossible to properly govern the whole stretched-out territory. We should then have got a Government of officials, but it is something that our people do not want. Our people want a democratic Government.

I am afraid the hon. member who has just spoken is like a certain number of other hon. members in this House who are so obsessed with hatred of the S.A. party that they ascribe every evil that has taken place in the country to the deliberate machinations of the party while in power. That is an unfortunate attitude to take up because it seems to me to be an attitude that loses sight of the fact that the South African party was face to face with an extremely difficult problem at the time on account of trade conditions and the scarcity of money. This accounted for two things, both of which have been the subject of criticism during this debate. In the first place, the Government had to take steps to curb the expenditure of councils, and we have been criticized for doing so; and secondly, when we were placed in such an unfortunate position as regards the financial stress of affairs we were not in the same position as the present Government, that is to say, we had not a large majority and an enthusiastic majority behind us to enable us to make any uncomfortable reform. The Minister must have seen, of course, that his proposals as embodied in this Bill have not been received on any side of the House with any great enthusiasm. It is felt, of course, by many people, that they do not provide any sufficient ground for increased economy on the part of provincial administration, and he has been criticized by people on his own side—the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) for example—for taking such steps as he has for promoting efficiency and economy. The Minister himself knows, I feel sure, that his attempts to enforce economy are not considered extremely efficacious, and he knows himself that they cannot be, because he has said, in fact, that this is to be the last chance the provincial administrations are to have, and that then they will be face to face with some drastic measures. The Minister appears to me to be a little fainthearted in the matter. He has told us that the only possible alternative for his present policy is that the provincial administrations will be driven to imposing a general tax on land. The member who has just spoken seemed to take that view, and the view that the S.A.P. had deliberately starved provincial councils with the idea of forcing them to put a tax on land. I was not here, but as far as I can see, there is not the slightest justification for that. One must look at the thing from the practical point of view. I am sure there is just as much opposition on these benches to a tax on land as on the benches of the Government in power. The Labour party used to talk a great deal about it, but now we do not hear anything. The hon. member for Troyeville said that, as a socialist, he was against it. That may be a part of socialism, but it is contrary to the doctrines which have been preached by the Labour Party for a good many years past. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) used to advocate a tax on land, and it was one of his grievances, in the days of the Unionist party, that other members of the party would not go so far. I should have thought that hon. members opposite would, by this time, have got themselves into a frame of mind in which they would welcome a tax on land; because they are giving support to measures which are going to ruin the land-owners in this country. Look at all the industrial legislation, and the increased death duties proposed by the Minister, and all that sort of thing, which are going to weaken the position of the landowner, and as hon. members opposite are so ready to back the Labour party in giving effect to measures of this kind, I should have thought that it was time they advocated a tax on land. The crux of the matter is that some steps must be devised to see that the money spent by the provincial administrations is spent to the best advantage. That is the problem we have to face. I think there are a great many people anxious to abolish provincial councils but they are only anxious to abolish them if they find it is impossible to curb their expenditure; because this House has already got a great deal to do. We know the number of Bills brought forward during a session, and the large amount of work that has to be done on Select Committees and so on, and I do not think anybody is anxious to add to that work if it can be avoided. But in spite of that feeling, there is a strong demand, and a growing demand, and a demand which the Minister has admitted will have to be met if some improvement does not take place; and the feeling is pretty general that the Provincial Administration is more extravagant than it need be. The main subject of expenditure is the educational expenditure. I cannot but think that if the total expenditure by the taxpayers of the Union—Union and provincial—were under consideration by this House at one time, I cannot but think that this House would insist on closer investigation into it than there is at present. Let us look at what we spend to-day. So far as I can see, taking the printed estimates, we have £178,000 on agricultural education, £541,000 for what is called Union education, £188,000 for child welfare, which is largely another matter of education, and £13,000 for the training ship, which I consider money well spent, and the subsidy to the provincial councils is £5,390,000. That makes a total of over £6.300,000. That is the minimum that we are spending on education in the Union to-day, and I make bold to say that if that expenditure were all under the direct control of this Parliament, there would be far more investigation as to the manner in which it is spent than now takes place. It is perfectly true it is under our control in one sense, but only indirectly, because if I ask the Minister how this £5.390,000 is spent: whether he is satisfied that it is spent to the best advantage, and if the officials who are responsible for the administration are really efficient, the Minister will tell me—quite rightly—that he really does not know; that this money is spent by the provincial administration, and that he has very little say in regard to the doings of those officials.

Is not that what is contemplated by the constitution?

I quite agree that that is the position, and some steps must be found to put an end to that state of affairs. The question, of course, as the Minister will quite rightly say, is, you criticize the present state of affairs which, admittedly, is contemplated by the constitution, but what are you going to put in its place? That is a very comfortable argument for the Minister, and really it is the Minister himself who, if he knows the weak spots, as he must do, better than we, should have put forward some scheme to remedy the defects. There have been some suggestions, and I would venture to mention another rough suggestion. It has been suggested that one of the best ways of making the provincial authorities see the importance of economy is to give them full responsibility for their expenditure. That sounds well in theory, but I do not think it works out in practice; because, when we had the previous system, they had very considerable liberty of action in regard to their expenditure. Some of them abused that liberty of action, and I do not think there is any evidence to show that the mere fact that the provincial administration will have to find, by taxation, the money for what they want to do, is any guarantee that their expenditure will be economical, because there are a very considerable number of people, and they seem to have more friends in the provincial councils than they do in this House, who are ready to spend any amount of money, reckoning the money will come out of comparatively few pockets, and that they can get those advantages at other people’s expense. That solution, I am afraid, will not take us very much further. It has been suggested that the Union Government should employ a commissioner to go into provincial expenditure. I think there is a good deal to be said for that, but it does not seem that that is likely to be effective; because, after all, the amount of expenditure in educational matters largely depends on policy, and questions of policy are to a large extent questions of opinion, and any official, however enlightened, may think the Cape Province is spending too much on the type of schools it puts up, or the facilities it affords in schools, and so on, and other people may have a different opinion. That, it seems to me, is not a very effective remedy; but I think there is a possible remedy indicated, a possible suggestion, in the second report of the Education Administration Commission. It appears, from that report, which seems to me to be a very good one, and is the work of people who thoroughly understand what they were writing about, that there is, at the present time, a very great want of co-ordination in educational matters. They give it very plainly in their report. The commission found that no solution of these complex problems could be satisfactory which did not take into account the economic, educational and financial factors for the whole field. It found that in addition to the Union Department of Education and the four provincial education departments, there were at least five other departments which dealt, more or less, with matters that came within its field without any co-ordination. The waste and inefficiency were due to the lack of any effective co-ordinating machinery That shows there is a great deal of overlapping, and where there is overlapping there is want of control, and that leads to want of economy. There is, however, a possibility of finding a remedy in following out the line of this commission, which gave instance after instance of the harm done by the want of co-ordination, by overlapping and by want of system. The commission recommended the establishment of a central board by the Union Government, which could take under its charge the task of co-ordinating the work now done by a large number of different departments. It is not necessary to adhere to the exact recommendations the commission makes. Ministers should take the proposals of the board as a nucleus, and should enlarge the functions of the board so that they should ascertain at periodic intervals whether the expenditure on education warrants the payments of subsidy; that is to say, whether the provinces are getting full value for the money spent on education, and whether this House is justified in voting the subsidy based on the figures put forward. If that were done periodically we should arrive at something like a proper basis. It is obvious at the present time there must be room for economy and better administration, because it is perfectly impossible that the anomalies described yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) could exist under a proper system, and it is also impossible that the average cost per pupil could so much exceed the average cost in other parts of the Empire, and even in neighbouring territories in South Africa. These anomalies could be removed to a great extent by careful administration. The Minister should take the proposals of the Educational Administrative Commission as a nucleus and should appoint a board upon which the provincial administrations should be represented. The board should be charged, first of all, with co-ordinating the work now done by the Union and the provinces, and should see that there is no overlapping and should have full control. Periodically the board should go into the question from a financial point of view to see whether the money spent on education is well spent. I agree that they will come up against questions of policy, which will be for the Government to settle. There will be, for instance, the question whether facilities now given in the Transvaal for secondary education should be continued, or even extended to the other provinces. Questions like that will have to be settled in the end by this House, but if at periodical intervals a report is made on the financial side of the administration, and then as a result of that report, and after reference to this House, a basis was adopted to last five years with an annual increase to allow for an annual increase in the number of scholars, in this way we should arrive at something like stability. One of the great effects of the present system is that the taxpayer does not know what he has got to pay, for there is not only taxation by the Union Government, but by the provincial administrations, and the man in the street resents being exposed to the risk of paying taxes twice over. He objects to having two income taxes, and to being worried by a number of intricate taxes which are changed at very frequent intervals and interfere with business. If we had a more stable basis of expenditure we should have a more stable basis of taxation, and that would tend to more confidence and satisfaction. It seems to me, in the face of what has been said both inside and outside the House, the general feeling among the taxpayers in the larger provinces is that the expenditure is getting too high, and there is no proper control of it. Therefore, I hope the Minister will consider the suggestion I have made. I have made it, not because it is our business to propose legislation of that kind, but because the Minister will say: “It is all very well to criticize, but you don’t put up an alternative.” In a humble way I have tried to propose an alternative, and I hope the Minister will consider it for what it is worth.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) favours the abolition of the provincial councils because he claimed this House is better able to look after the important national service of education. He forgets, however, members of this House are largely recruited from the provincial councils. The Minister of Finance, for instance, was a member of the provincial council, and I think most parties of the House agree that he is the most capable Finance Minister we have had since Union. Any reflection on the capacity of the provincial councils, therefore, to look after education is also a reflection on the capacity of this House to do so. I think the hon. Minister of Finance has every reason to be satisfied with the course of this debate. The question of financial relationship between the Union Government and the provinces is one of the most burning questions we have had in the last seven years, and only last year we had one of the fiercest battles on the question ever fought in this House. Remembering that, it seemed to me impossible to arrive at a settlement acceptable to all parties. Yet the hon. Minister of Finance seems to have achieved the impossible, for he has completely disarmed the Opposition and is compelling the acceptance of this Bill. This has been a debate of anticlimaxes. From the commencement of the session, the Opposition have been promising us a tremendous fight on this Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been rattling his sword like a German warlord. On the Budget debate he was straining at the leash, snarling at the Minister of Finance, telling him that he has let down the taxpayer. Now the opportunity is here and the moment has come for the attack, it seems as if the attack has fallen flat, like the proverbial pancake. After this anti-climax we have another one from the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). Because he cannot succeed in getting a stouter weapon to beat the Minister with, he starts feverishly working the parish pump. Very correctly he started by rebuking the hon. members for Natal on the other side, by telling them that their wild talk about secession was sheer nonsense. He might have gone further and have said that his own talk about the right of Natal to differential treatment was sheer nonsense. He started his subject with a glowing eulogy of the virtues of uniformity. He asked why the Minister was repealing Act No. 2 of the previous year. He told us what a fine thing it was to have the salaries of teachers in South Africa uniform. He said if we didn’t have it here it would be an incentive to extravagance. He had no sooner finished, than he tells us that uniformity, where it affects Natal, is the most dreadful thing possible. I don’t think Natal has any reason to complain about the proposal being made here to change the control of liquor licences, because all that is being done is that the liquor licences are not taken entirely out of the hands of Natal, the only change is from the municipalities to the provincial council, who are the chosen representatives of the people. If Natal is opposed to it, it is the easiest thing in the world, for the people to bring pressure to bear on the provincial council, and if they want a remedy it is in Natal’s hands. One speech from the other side was that of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter). I found it most interesting, and I wish all matters in this House could be discussed in that spirit. He tried to prove last night that there is one serious omission in the Bill, namely, that there is no restraint on the provincial councils with regard to expenditure, and he would like to see some kind of constitutional check. In the second place, he assumed there has been undue waste and extravagance, making extra constitutional check in South Africa necessary. There is the same constitutional check on provincial councils, as there is on this House, because members of the provincial council consist of popular representatives, men who are responsible to the people, and who are regularly called to account by the people. If the people have not expressed any considerable dissatisfaction in South Africa with the way moneys have been spent by the provincial council, it shows the people are not convinced that there has been extravagance. I am convinced in my mind that there has been no undue extravagance and waste. No one in the House, not even the Baxter report, has succeeded in showing there has been waste and extravagance in South Africa. The Baxter report is full of vague generalities. You don’t find any concrete example of waste or extravagance by any of the provinces. I have gone through it, looking for a concrete case of waste, in the Free State Province.

Have you compared the cost of education in this country with other countries?

The Baxter report assumes that there has been extravagance, because the cost of education in South Africa is higher than in any other country. They are assuming that the conditions of South Africa are no different from the conditions in any other country. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) fell into the same trap. Because there was a difference between the cost at Paarl and the cost at Williston, he concluded that one of the two was wasting money. He ought to know that at the Paarl you have a concentration of secondary schools. There you have sons and daughters of South Africa from all parts being educated. You have got a number of large and good secondary schools in the Paarl and the cost of them is high, whereas in Williston you probably have not even got a secondary school. The mistake made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) is the mistake made all over, also in the Baxter report. Let me deal with the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) about the cost of education in this country being too high as compared with other countries. I leave out the cost to South Africa, of, say, bilingualism. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has not got the slightest idea of what bilingualism is costing this country. In many of your small country schools you have to duplicate your staff in order to provide for a small number of children requiring to be educated in the other medium. Then, also, over 20 years ago you had a devastating war in South Africa and we in the Free State and Transvaal particularly have had to build up our schools and educational systems right from the beginning. Canada, Australia and other countries have not had that. The third and the highest point that we have to bear in mind, whenever we talk of educational expenditure in South Africa is that the white man in this country has got a higher function to fulfil than in any other country in the world. In England a large proportion of the white population are destined to be unskilled workers. All the unskilled work in Great Britain is done by the white people there. They don’t require much education, and they pass out of the schools very quickly. Therefore, the cost of their education is low. In South Africa can we allow a large proportion of the white population to be destined for unskilled work? It is only now, when you have a Government that is following a policy of civilized labour that the white unskilled worker has a chance in South Africa. There is even very little scope in South Africa for the skilled white worker. We have many youths in South Africa who have not an opportunity of passing into some skilled work, with the result that our schools have got to educate the white man in South Africa to something more than unskilled, or even skilled, work. Many hon. members, the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), the member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and, I think, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), are constantly inveighing against the many secondary schools in South Africa. There is the cause of it. Every parent in South Africa wants to send his sons into a profession, and—

They all want to be lawyers and doctors, and there is no room for them in South Africa as lawyers and doctors.

But there is less room for unskilled workers.

That is very doubtful; that is incorrect.

We have been blamed, because we are trying to give the poor unskilled worker a chance on the railways.

That would be too low for him, I would have thought. That is not a doctor’s or a lawyer’s position.

I am the editor of a paper in the Free State. I recognize that there have been too many secondary schools springing up in the Free State, and I attacked that policy, but public opinion was too strong, it simply brushed opposition aside. I think people realize everywhere that they cannot allow their sons to be unskilled workers. Everybody has been anxious to send his sons into some profession or other. Now we are trying to change the conditions in South Africa and to embark upon a bold industrial policy. I admit we are producing too many doctors and dentists. We have twice as many doctors in South Africa as any other country in the world. We have too many lawyers. But the people to blame are not the councils; they have been compelled by public opinion to do it. What you have to do is to change the conditions, and then only-will it be possible for us to send some of our white boys into the skilled trades and occupations in South Africa. Until that is done and until adequate openings are provided in the industries of this country for our white youths, there will be this desire for secondary education in South Africa. I want to say a word or two on behalf of the teachers particularly. I have been blamed for looking at things very much from the point of view of a teacher, but I am not ashamed of it, because teachers are as public-spirited as any section of the community. I want to tell the Minister why, on behalf of all those who are interested in education, I welcome this Bill, because if there is one thing this Bill is going to do it is going to give stability to education and educational control in South Africa. The one curse to education in this country during the last seven years has been the instability and insecurity under which everybody connected with education has been suffering. For years we have had this constant tinkering at our provincial system. Every year we have had a kind of earthquake sprung on the educational world of South Africa. I can say here on behalf of the Free State that every year there has been an earthquake in regard to education in the Free State. Now the provincial council will know exactly what they are going to have, what they can spend every year on education. Stability—that is the one thing that the teachers will get under this Bill. Let me tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) what took place in the Free State last year. In the middle of the school year, in the sacred name of economy—they had to do it, pressure was brought to bear upon them by this House—they were suddenly compelled to increase the number of children in a class-room and, as a result, many teachers became unnecessary. In the middle of the school year there was a reshuffling all over the Free State at a time when the children were busy preparing for their examinations. Some class-rooms were abandoned, and two classes were forced into one room in the middle of the school year. Anyone who knows anything about education will realize that that would have a most harmful effect. Voluntarily the teachers in the Free State consented to a diminution of salary of 5 per cent.; they made this sacrifice. Every year something like that is sprung upon them. That is the sort of thing that has been killing education in South Africa. I am glad we are now to have a certain amount of stability. I do not know whether this is to be the final solution of the difficulty, but I hope it will be. Here you are giving to the provincial councils the means to carry on the important work of education. At the same time you are largely safeguarding the general taxpayer, and I think this settlement will certainly last many years in South Africa. Now that there is stability, I want to touch on another point, and that is that we consider it is up to the provincial councils—and I think this House ought to make it clear to them that the time has come that they should do so—to thoroughly investigate the system of education in vogue in South Africa to see whether any improvement cannot be made. To my mind the system of education in South Africa at the present moment is out of date. To my mind, and this is the doctrine I have preached ever since I have been connected with education in South Africa, and I am glad to see there is an increasing volume of opinion in favour of it, education ought to prepare for life in South Africa. Schools in South Africa, whether rural or in the towns, think that life in South Africa means life in the towns. The whole of our educational system seems to prepare our children for life in the towns, and this applies to the Cape as well. There is nothing in the rural schools in the Cape Province to indicate that the children there are destined for life on the farms of South Africa. You want to give to rural education in South Africa the agricultural bias. It is the same problem that Denmark faced 50 years ago. Then there was the same trek from the country to the towns in Denmark. The same problem was presented, and I expect the same discussions took place in the Danish House of Parliament, as to why their sons were going from the country into the towns. One man got up and told them what was wrong: he showed them that they must give their rural education an agricultural bias. In one generation he has made the trek the other way in Denmark, and the children are leaving the towns to go back to the country districts. What has happened in Denmark? The rural schools in Denmark are the finest in that country. The head of one of those schools would not change his position to become inspector of one of the schools in Copenhagen. Here we seem to think that the only schools to look after are the town schools. That is why I must say that I always find the attitude of hon. members opposite, when they oppose educational proposals, rather selfish, because they know that any economy in education will not be at the expense of the town schools.

Oh no.

The hon. member knows that if any attempt were made to starve the schools in Cape Town, what a rumpus there would be.

I do not know it. There is one school where the Minister wants to spend more than we think is necessary.

We must realize that 80 per cent. of our youth has to find a living on our farms. From the beginning we must inculcate in them a love of farming and farm life. The second point I wish to raise is in connection with the language question. I know that this is a delicate matter, but I shall try to deal with it without treading on anyone’s corns. My personal experience is that even in Cape Town there is not enough provision for the education of the Dutch-speaking child through the medium of the home language. I have had personal experience of this. I have came down here with my children for this session, and have found that with the exception of one small school at Tamboers Kloof, there is not a single school where they can be so educated through the Afrikaans medium. In Bloemfontein every Englishman can have his English speaking child educated in his language. Speaking for myself, and not for my party, I must say that if that is the sort of provision which Cape Town makes for the education of children of members of Parliament, it is an unfortunate state of affairs. My point is that Cape Town is not doing its duty towards the children of Dutch-speaking parents. The same with regard to Natal. I have received from people in Natal letters complaining of the want of provision for the other official language there. I have been asked to move a resolution on this matter, but I have not done so. I hope Natal will be animated by the very fine spirit shown at the joint sitting of both Houses recently in regard to the question of the official language, and I hope one has only got to draw attention to the matter in the House to learn that in future adequate provision will be made for the second home language in the Union.

That is not fair. Provision has already been made.

I have received a shoal of papers. There is not a Dutch body in Natal that has not passed resolutions on the subject.

I have never heard of them.

I would like you to give me the name of one of your informants.

I will give you any number of bodies in Natal who passed those resolutions. In conclusion, let me add to what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said, and other hon. members, that the salvation of South Africa lies in its educational system—in its schools. We have been passing a number of measures calculated to protect the white man in South Africa. We have passed a colour bar and a minimum wage.

Wait and see.

We feel these were necessary in the interests of the white race, but I believe that such measures are only palliative, and that there is only one way of entrenching the position of the white race in South Africa. That is through the development of the mental and moral capacity of the white man to such an extent that he will be superior to the native races. We know that the white man has the capacity to rule in South Africa, and all we have to do is to develop that capacity to the fullest possible extent through our schools. I hope all this talk of money being wasted on education will cease in this House.

The principal point in Natal’s antagonism to this Bill is the fact that when the Minister of Finance was in Durban attending the provincial congress, he did not give the municipalities a hearing before making such a drastic cut in their revenue. Had the Minister given this interview, he would have had placed before him a very strong case, so strong, indeed, that he would not have agreed to this cut without allowing some quid pro quo for it. The Minister must remember that this has been a vested interest of the municipalities for over 70 years, and if he had given them a hearing he would have shown that convention spirit which we all wish to see exhibited every day. If this matter is adjusted it will be found that Natal has no great complaint against this Bill, but it hits the smaller municipalities very hard indeed. In my own constituency there is a municipality with 1,000 inhabitants, and it means £750 a year less to them, and this means extra taxation all round. There is another point in this Bill to which I take strong exception, and that is the way in which the provincial councils are abusing their power of taxation. There is a grave danger of a most vital industry of South Africa being undermined. I allude to the inordinately heavy taxation which they are levying upon horse-racing. With the advent of the motor-car, horse-breeding declined in South Africa. The demand for the cart and carriage horse is negligible, and the whole of this vital industry to South Africa is encouraged and has become what it is to-day through racing.

Through humbugging on the race-course?

A few years ago we had to import a number of horses, but to-day this is cut down by 75 per cent. because of the rise in the standard of South African horses, and if you take the record of racing to-day you will find that 63 per cent. of the big races are won by South African-bred horses. In the past the horse has been a principal factor in our wars and revolutions, and rebellions, and if this industry is to decline it is going to be a bad day for South Africa. Nobody knows when we may have to requisition horses.

Does racing help?

Racing is keeping your horse-breeding going to-day. It is a vital industry to South Africa.

What is the difference between a race-horse and a cart-horse?

This racing industry is important in this way. To-day there are 2.000 horses in training in South Africa, and their food bill alone amounts to £200,000 a year. It is grown in the Cape Province as wheat and oats, and this industry keeps employed a number of artizans, farriers, saddlers, etc.

Buy a motor-car.

You cannot use motor-cars in warfare to climb hills. Nowhere else in the world has the horse so demonstrated its prowess as in South Africa. If we had to import horses they would not be any use, because no horse imported is usable in a practical way for 12 months. It takes that period to acclimatize them. We have to keep our police force and our burgers mounted in case of necessity, and how are we going to do it if this industry is not maintained? I think the Central Government should take over this taxation, which costs nothing to collect. All they would have to do would be to send a Treasury clerk, after each race meeting, to check the returns and come back with the cheque.

I have never known a man come back from the race-course with a cheque yet.

The hon. member usually talks about bananas. Horse-breeding is distributed throughout South Africa among small men who have one or two mares as well as big farmers, and they find the best market for their race-horses is on the race-course. Only the best horses are used for racing, the others being useful for remounts and other purposes. In those districts in which racing is participated in only 25 per cent. of the people form the racing public, yet they are inordinately taxed. The amounts paid in taxation in this way are: Cape, £42,750; Transvaal, £106,000; Natal, £54,516; total, £204,231. This taxation is becoming too burdensome. The Durban Turf Club in its last annual report showed a loss of £3,000.

Hear, hear.

I am sorry for the ignorance of the hon. gentleman who said “hear, hear.” The question is, are the turf clubs going to run races at a loss? If they close down the demand for horses will be reduced, and the horse-breeding industry will be undermined. People are not only taxed on their racing, but they also have to pay income tax as well on racing incomes. I plead in the interests of South Africa that this power of taxation be taken out of the hands of provincial councils, for the horse-breeding industry is too vital to South Africa to be undermined. In the last three years there has been an alarming shrinkage in the number of horses in South Africa and now, including foals, we have only 857,000. This is not a healthy state of affairs, and the only way to rectify it is in the manner I have described. I think this House has more sense of fair play and more patriotic feelings than the provincial councils, whose sole object is to get money, at no matter what cost to the country.

I think the Minister of Finance must be feeling rather bewildered when he hears the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) telling us that there is in this Government more common sense and patriotic feeling than in provincial councils, and he has just been making a diatribe against the Natal Provincial Council which is controlled entirely by the South African party.

I condemned the whole lot.

I was very much interested in the hon. member’s racing experiences, but he would have done better if he had told us how to bring mules in from the Argentine. There is only one point I wish to discuss in the Bill, and that is the transfer of licences from the Natal municipalities to the Natal Provincial Council. The fact is that this is the result of a bargain made between the Minister of Finance and the executive of the Natal Provincial Council last year. The Natal provincial executive is made up of five men. The administrator is a good South African party man.

He is non-party. You know nothing at all about it.

I know just as much as the hon. member knows about Argentine mules. The four members of the Natal executive committee are Mr. Dyson, who represents Dundee; Mr. W. A. G. Russell, who represents Berea, and both of them have worked for this agreement; Mr. Bowden, who represents Weenen, and Mr. Chas. Clarkson, who is the organizing secretary of the South African party at Durban. These are four South African party men, and they run the provincial council, and they are the men who have worked for this agreement.

Who says so?

Read the papers and don’t be stupid.

That is an Argentine mule tribute.

My point is that a Pact Minister is carrying out the request of the South African party in Natal, and it is amusing to hear the protests of the South African party members of Parliament. The towns in Natal have a majority in the Natal Provincial Council, and if they object to the transference they should pass a resolution saying they don’t want this clause carried into effect.

I will withdraw it if the provincial executive tells me to do it.

If the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) will send a wire to his colleague on the Natal provincial executive and tell him that all that is wanted is for the provincial executive to say that the transference is not required, and if the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) will send wires to their colleagues and say: “This is the instruction of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)” the thing will be settled. The position is very funny, for there is a split somewhere in the South African party in Natal. The South African party members for Natal constituencies here are trying to make party capital out of a request made by their colleagues in Natal. I have wired to my people in Natal asking them to try to get a withdrawal, and if every Natal member who is here would do the same the whole trouble would be settled. It is quite a simple proposition. It is done at the request of the representative of Natal, and if the representatives are sincere, they will do as we have done.

There have been two very notable speeches made in this House on the other side in connection with this debate. I refer to the speech by the Minister and by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth). I think it would have been better if the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) had left the subject on the high plane to which it had been carried by those gentlemen. We cannot discuss any question of vital importance for half-an-hour in this House without an attempt being made to draw in the party question. I ask the hon. member for Umbilo what matters it whether the executive council of Natal are South African party men or not, whether the Minister was deceived by these people or not, but what does matter is that if the Minister realizes there has been a mistake he should, if possible, rectify it. In the first place comes the town of Durban, but the position is the same in every other township in Natal, and the position as affecting Durban is an extremely serious one. Objection is taken to this measure by the whole of the representatives of the towns of Natal on two grounds. The representatives from the various municipalities have met together and have come to the decision on two grounds that the Bill is objectionable. The first is that these revenues have been and are an integral portion of municipal revenue and form part of the security offered to municipal bond-holders. Their transfer would seriously depreciate municipal securities. The other reason is that the burden of taxation already born by local authorities is excessive in comparison with that of rural areas. The proposed transfer of municipal revenues will result in increased burdens on the towns only. Take the first objection first. It is wrong to take from municipal bodies the moneys which come into their exchequer by the assessment of rates. There was a Royal Commission on local taxation in England as far back as 1901 composed of some of the highest financial authorities living in England at the time, and this is what they said on this important question of the allocation of revenue—

This principle enunciated by this commission has been the guiding factor of subsequent Chancellors of the Exchequer of Great Britain to the present time.

What does our commission say?

The Baxter report is in agreement. I want to deal with this point because it is of vital importance, and I want to appeal to the Labour party on this as a principle. It is deemed to be right where revenue is raised, there it should be spent, and not be handed over to other people. I don’t want to labour the point any further, but even in the Baxter report you find this is the finding. Paragraph 608 states—

They agree as far as practicable these revenues should be left to the municipalities themselves.

Where did they say that?

Paragraph 608.

Why did the provincial executive agree to this?

I dealt with that before you came into the House. The first point I make is these revenues should not be taken away from the municipalities. The second point I want to urge is the gross injustice so far as the town of Durban is concerned if this Bill becomes law. It has been stated that Durban contributes two-thirds of the total expenditure towards the revenue of the Natal Provincial Council, even at the present time. Now, with the loss of something like £40,000 a year, the result of this law, if it is passed, plus the increased licences due to be imposed on Durban in common with other towns, is that you are asking Durban to pay not less than 80 per cent. of the total revenue towards the Provincial Council of Natal. I don’t think the Minister can have realized what the position was any more than I fancy did the members of the executive realize when they made this proposal.

They need not carry it out.

Surely you are not serious if you say they need not carry it out if this law is passed. They must carry it out. They have no other way of getting revenue. I have the greatest respect for the finance Minister’s fairness and perspicacity, but I ask him to seriously consider this when he says they need not carry it out. There will be no other form of revenue, and they must take the revenue in this form. I don’t think the Minister should leave it there, but that he should make it impossible for this great injustice, to be inflicted on Durban and the other municipalities, to be carried into effect. Where this matter becomes even harder is when one considers the free services which Durban grants to the Government. Reference has already been made to the free services which are rendered by Durban to the railway administration and to the Government, and I have been supplied with authentic figures as to the amount which is involved annually in these free grants which are made by the municipality to the Government. The remission of rates alone in Durban on Government and railway properties amounts to no less than a sum of £25,000 a year. In other words, if the Government buildings and the railway buildings, railway sheds, wharves, etc., were to be assessed for rates, like any other building in the town, they would bring in to the town a sum of £25,000 a year. The sewerage services, to which reference has been made, will give £3,561 a year. The free fire insurance, if paid for, will bring in £1.331 a year. The licensing of railway vehicles, if taxed the same as other vehicles, would bring in £2,600 a year, and, in addition to that, the municipality gives to the Addington hospital £400 a year, Durban Light Infantry £177. Natal University College £520, and Natal Technical College £2,500 These sums aggregate no less than £36,000 a year.

It is so in most of the towns throughout South Africa.

I do not think you will find that it is so. I think it is peculiarly the case in Durban that they give away these sums and render these free services. There is one other matter that I want to refer to. Recently an agreement was entered into between the municipality of Durban and the railway administration, under which it was agreed that the Durban municipality’s boundaries should be extended so as to include the whole of the wharfage frontage right towards the north pier, and on the other side so as to include the whole of the reclaimed area of Congella. In taking over that very large area, the municipality assumed responsibility for draining it and putting down sewerage, and culverts and canals, and undertook generally the supervision of that area. In that agreement, which I understand the Minister has still to present to Parliament for ratification, the only return that the municipality are to get for taking upon themselves these obligations, was that they should have the fees due to the granting of licences on that area.

Who made that agreement?

It is an agreement entered into between the railway administration and the Durban Municipality in the month of August last year.

Since when is the railway administration able to dispose of licence fees?

Unfortunately, they are not, but I think that is rather beside the mark. The Durban Municipality, not knowing or contemplating that the licences were to be taken away from them, entered into these obligations with the administration, and now, if this Bill becomes law, these licences upon which they were relying to reimburse them for the expenditure to which they will be put in connection with the administration of this large area, will go away from them.

Who gets the area that is reclaimed?

It belongs now to the town. The town’s boundaries have been extended so as to include that area.

They are getting a big area.

They are not getting a big area in the sense that the hon. member says, because these places are presently occupied by wharves and large warehouses. They are abutting on the bay and the ocean, but the bulk of them will be under the administration of the railways. The municipality would be able to get revenue by way of licences, but, as I pointed out, if this Bill becomes law they will be involved in all these obligations while the money will not come to them any more, but will go to the provincial council. I do not want to take this subject further. I cannot help feeling that the Minister, from the observation that he made to the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), is in sympathy with the position in which the towns are placed, and that, of course, is some way towards a remedy. I do not think it should be left in the position where it is. I believe a mistake was made; I do not think anybody realized exactly what this meant to the municipalities, and I do hope the Minister will take steps to remedy it. There is one means by which he can help us, and which is perfectly open, and that is in regard to policing. I understood the Minister to say that the Minister of Justice would be willing to take over the municipal police. The Minister knows that there are very grave sentimental reasons attaching to the relinquishing of the police on the part of the people of Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Unfortunately, these things get mixed up with politics, and the people want to retain their own police, and if the Minister takes the police over it will cost him in the case of Durban, £70,000 a year, and in the case of Pietermaritzburg, £12,000 a year. Why cannot he, in some way, give a contribution towards the upkeep of these police in some form as a quid pro quo, and so by giving us half what it would cost him. Durban would then be out of its difficulties, because I understand that the amount involved would be about £40,000 a year. A better plan, of course, would be to rescind this proposal, and leave the provincial council to then raise their taxation in the best method that they can. In that way the anomaly which exists to-day, under which the towns are paying so very much in comparison to the country districts, will cease to exist; at any rate, the towns will have some remedy in the manner which I have indicated.

As a representative of a country constituency, I cannot do otherwise than express my hearty appreciation of this Bill, namely, that the Minister takes steps here to place our educational system on a sounder basis. The only opposition that there is comes from hon. members opposite, and it is against the money that is being spent on education. But it is very unfair, seeing that they represent the towns and villages where the people live very near the schools and can easily make use of them. We who represent the countryside know how difficult it is for the people there to get their children to school. Under the former Government the countryside education was bleeding to death, and if it had kept on longer some of our sons and daughters would again, as in previous years, have grown up without being able to sign their name, except with difficulty, and that would have been a scandal. If there is one portion of the population who does everything in its power to provide education for its children, then it is the families who live on the countryside. They send their children far, and sometimes on foot, and are anxious to put the children to school, for they know that the time is past that each child will inherit a large piece of ground and they know that they must find another way out. I know of many instances where a child of a family was educated and he assisted all the others to be educated. The poor man is willing to do his best, and it is the duty of the State to help him. Under the new system which is now proposed the provincial council will be put into the position to give every child the opportunity to be educated. We often hear that we must develop our country. It is necessary, but when we talk about the development of the intelligence of our people then we hear about economy. We should do this first and then our people will be better able to develop the country. I agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) that the educational system on the countryside leaves much to be desired. If we take our boys on the countryside we shall find that 96 per cent. of them are fated to pass their lives as farmers in the country, and we find that they have to receive their education from a lady. This is an unsound state of affairs, and when the children leave school they know nothing of the calling which they have to follow. I came across a case in my constituency which is a good example. The teachers take the children in their spare time and teach them to work a big garden and the produce is divided amongst them. It is one of the nicest gardens that I have yet seen. Those children are educated, and they get to love gardening and their future calling. That is what we want. Unhappily the position at the moment is that the children know nothing about it when they leave school. If we give money to the provincial council to do their duty we shall be helping this matter to a great extent. It is because these privileges are restored to the poor man that I welcome this Bill. The poor man cannot give land to his children, but he can give a good education if it is in any way made possible for him. It is incorrect to say that the poor child has not the same intelligence as the rich child. We have instances everywhere where they shine if given an opportunity for development. I will not allege that the provincial councils in the past did not answer their purpose. The council in the Cape Province has done a great work. In 1910, when the council was created, the position was that hundreds of people grew up without education to enable them to properly sign their names, and this was a scandal for the Government of the town. The provincial councils have tried to put every child to school and made good progress until the former Government again so reduced the resources of the council that children were again kept out of school who should have been there. But the mistake with the Councils is that they commenced in too large a way. Shortly after the establishment of the councils our Administrator was honoured with a title. A small empire was created and palaces were built for school buildings. To-day, however, we appreciate that the Administrator also is only human. I am certain that in the appointments which the present Government is going to make the provincial councils will be induced to give education to our children so that we get value for every pound that we spend on education. Then the agitation will disappear. I hope that the Minister of Finance will take no notice of the Opposition and will push this Bill through the House.

The Minister has been complimented on the clear and lucid manner in which he introduced this Bill, and I wish to associate myself with those who have paid him that compliment. Some of the provisions of the Bill find disfavour with the people of Natal. With regard to the taxation proposed in the Bill, I do not propose to say much. The Minister referred particularly, in his introductory remarks, to one section of the Bill having reference to the employers tax, the effect of which he hoped would lead to the curtailment of the taxing powers of the provincial councils. I refer to sub-section (7) of section 2, which provides for the reductions of the subsidy by an amount equivalent to the revenue derived by councils from the imposition of the tax on employers of labour engaged in mining. I am not sure that this provision is not going to defeat the object the Minister has in view. He seems to think that an incentive is in that way given to the provincial councils to abandon that form of taxation. I agree with him that it will be an incentive to abandon it, in so far as it applies to employers connected with mining operations, for it seems to me clear that the provincial councils will not trouble to impose such taxation and set up the necessary machinery to collect it since they are not to receive any financial benefits from it, and I think the Minister is quite right in assuming that, in so far as the employers tax applies to mining operations, it will be abandoned by the provincial councils. We know, from past experience, that provincial councils have exploited, to the utmost limits, the taxation powers conferred upon them, and there are still left to them, under this Bill, powers which they may exercise in respect of employers other than those carrying on mining operations, to the detriment of the best interests of the country. It is a tax which is recognized on this side to be an unsound one as it tends to discourage employment, and if it is extended to the operations of commercial men, contractors, farmers and others, which is not unlikely, then I think it is going to do an immense amount of harm to the country. I should much prefer to see the rights of the provincial councils to impose this tax taken away altogether.

What would you give in place of it?

I would take it away; because if it is made to apply to employers generally, I assure the Minister that it will retard progress and provoke such an outburst of protest that it is not worth it. The Minister has stated that the provisions of this Bill, in so far as they relate to the assigning to the provincial councils of license revenues—which at present legally belong to local authorities in Natal—has created a stir in Natal, which I admit. There is a great deal of feeling in Natal on this question; because Natal feels—the local authorities feel—that it is sought to deprive them of a right which has existed from the earliest days of municipal government in that province. There has been no other system in Natal. Local authorities in Natal have always been allowed revenues in respect of licences issued within their areas. Natal local authorities feel further that in this matter they have not been treated fairly as they have not been consulted with regard to the proposals. I think it was in 1912 the first commission sat to consider Financial Relations, and on that commission Natal was represented by one member. That commission made no recommendation that these revenues should be assigned to the provincial councils but stated that in the event of the local authorities being deprived of such sources of revenue, the local authorities should be entitled to some form of compensation. I am not aware that the Natal Municipal Association was consulted at all when that commission sat. In 1913, we know that the Financial Relations Bill came into being, and that clearly laid down the financial relations as between the provinces and the Union Government in regard to licences. The principle was recognized there that the control of licences in local Government areas, was to remain with local authorities, and Natal considered that that was the policy that was to be adopted, and was a definite and permanent settlement of the question. Then in 1922 or 1923 a further commission was appointed to go into this question of financial relations—the Baxter Commission—on which Natal was not represented. I think it will be found that two of the gentlemen elected on that commission were Transvaal men, and one or two Cape men. That commission sat in Durban, and although this idea of taking the municipal revenues must have been operating in the minds of the commission when they went to Natal, the Natal Municipal Association was not even asked to attend before the commission and state its case or defend its rights to these revenues.

The facts were never in dispute.

I do think it was an act of injustice to that association, in any case, for the commission to sit in Durban and ignore them, when the commission had in its mind the question of depriving the local authorities of revenues which had vested in them for 70 years. Let us pass on. We know that the Borough Ordinance was passed in 1924, and I think it was in December that it was assented to by the Governor-General-in-Council. The power to collect the revenues in respect of these licences was recognized and reaffirmed in this Ordinance. Just about the same time the Minister went to Durban, to attend a conference on provincial financial relations. This conference was composed of the Minister and representatives from the executive committees of the four provinces at which he agreed to introduce the necessary legislation to deprive the local authorities of their rights. There again we have this conference taking place and this question of depriving the local authorities of licence revenues coming up, and the Natal Municipal Association, which is the representative of all the boroughs and townships in Natal, being ignored. Not a single witness representing local authorities was requested to appear before the conference, and the representatives of the Natal Municipal Association were not invited to be present. The Natal local authorities feel that they have been ridden over roughshod. The right, to grant trading licences was conferred on Natal boroughs in 1854 on condition that the boroughs maintained police supervision. In 1861 an amending Act was passed which tended to widen the powers given to the municipalities. The municipalities law of 1872 further extended those powers. Then in Natal we have townships, which are controlled by local boards. In 1881 these boards were empowered to issue trading licences and to use the revenues so raised. That Act has been amended from time to time, and the powers of the boards widened and extended. This is the system which has grown up in Natal, but which it is now sought to take away. There is also provision in this Act for the policing of boroughs by police under the control of the municipality. In the case of a number of smaller towns in Natal this power was exercised until a few years ago. In my own town of Ladysmith the town council up to 1920 had its own police force which it maintained, but in that year an agreement was made with the Government of the day for the policing of the town, and that agreement is in force up to the present time. Under that agreement the Government specifically contracted that the municipalities should be entitled to receive all the revenue from licences. Section 9 of the agreement says that the town council shall have no control over the police, but have power to make representations to the officer in control of the police. The Government was entitled to receive all the fines, but the council retained the moneys from all licences. Now the importance of the local authorities in Natal retaining control of their licence revenues, and having their own licensing officers cannot be urged too strongly. Our racial conditions in Natal make it essential that the strictest control should be exercised in the issue of licences. Under the system an officer is appointed by the council, who deals with applications. He knows the local conditions, and his decisions are subject to review by the council, and in that way the issue of licences to Asiatics and others is restricted. If, under this new system, there is going to be any relaxation of the system, it is going to open the flood gates to further Asiatic competition, and will drive the European storekeepers in the country towns to the wall.

Where is that control interfered with under the Bill?

It gives the control to the provincial council, but it does not follow that the provincial council will continue the system in vogue at the present time.

The South Africa Act gives them power to legislate.

If it gives them such power, why is it necessary for the Minister to undertake this responsibility for them, and give them powers through this House which they have already got? We maintain there is no occasion for the provincial council to come to this House for the powers the Minister seeks. If the provincial council wants to deprive the local authorities in Natal of their licence revenues, they have the power. Why don’t they exercise the power which they have? Why is it necessary to get the Minister to come to this House to obtain powers which they already possess and which enables them to take these revenues if they wish? The provincial council knows quite well that it dare not, itself, attempt to take away the licensing powers and rights to the licence revenues from the local authorities, and this is an attempt to do it in a roundabout, indirect way, with the assistance of the hon. Minister. This is a serious matter to the local authorities in Natal, and in the case of some of the smaller townships it will be difficult for them to continue without this revenue. I have here the amounts which will be lost to the municipalities if this measure becomes law, and I would like to refer to them. Durban, £37,400: Pietermaritzburg, £5,672; Greytown. £749: Estcourt, £711; Ladismith, £903; Dundee, £1,384; Newcastle, £769; Vryheid, £916; South Shepstone, £256; Eshowe. £194; Richmond, £162; Howick, £117; Weenen, £105; Glencoe, £147; Paulpietersburg, £125; Charles Town, £77; Stanger, £208. The smaller townships will find themselves in a difficult position if the licence revenues they have been accustomed to in the past are taken away from them.

What about the small towns in the Union that have not had these licences?

They have never had them, and therefore have never been asked to give anything away. We are asked to give away what we have enjoyed for 70 years. Now I would like to give you a few figures of the difference in the rate by which the municipalities stand to suffer by the change. Durban, ½d.; Pietermaritzburg, 28d.; Dundee, ½d.: Newcastle, ⅝d.; Vryheid, ½d.; Ladismith, 9/16d Greytown, ¾d.; Weenen, ¼d.; Utrecht, 7/16d.; Verulam, ¼d.; South Barrow, ⅜d.; Stanger, ¾d.; Paulpietersburg, 5/16d.; South Shepstone, 9/16d.; Eshowe, ½d.; Harding, ½d.; Mooi River, ¾d.; Howick. ¾d.; Richmond, ⅜d. By increasing the licensing fees an additional burden is placed on the shoulders of those who have to carry the burden of this increased rate. I would like, briefly, to refer to the question of the Financial Relation Act of 1913, and to what the present Administrator of Natal had to say. He said in his minority report of the Provincial Administration report of 1916—

That is not only the view of the Administrator of Natal, but it is the view of Natal.

I thought you were pleading for further curtailment of their powers.

Whose powers?

The powers of the council.

I am only calling your attention to the fact that the Administrator of Natal is of opinion that the provisions of the Financial Relations Act of 1913, in so far as that Act established the relationship between the Union and the provinces, should not be altered. That is what the Minister proposes to do under this Bill—he proposes to alter the provisions of the Act of 1913. The Minister, I think, has already been reminded that it is not only the Natal municipal association which is of opinion that these licence revenues should accrue to the municipalities, but it is the opinion of the municipal associations of the other three provinces, the Cape, the Free State and the Transvaal.

What have they got to do with it?

This is the resolution which was passed by the conference of representatives of the four provinces—

That is the feeling of the local authorities of the whole of the Union in regard to these revenues. I can only conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision, and adopt the suggestion which was made to him by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that he should leave this matter to be settled between the provincial council of Natal and the local authorities concerned. I certainly understood from the way the Minister nodded his head, when that suggestion was made to him, that he was kindly disposed towards it, and I hope he is still kindly disposed towards it. I do not know what may happen if Durban, which is very proud of its police force—a force which has taken something like 70 years to build up—decides to retain its police, but refuses to exercise supervision over premises which are licensed and the revenues of which are received by the provincial council. It will be a very unpleasant thing indeed if the Government should be compelled to take powers by which they can exercise compulsion. I am quite sure that the municipalities of Durban and Pietermaritzburg are not likely to readily give up forces which, from the point of view of efficiency, are second-to-none in South Africa, and of which those towns have just reason to be proud.

The speches we have heard from hon. members from Natal have proved to me that the stand I have always taken is the correct one, namely, that the sooner South Africa does away with the provincial councils, the better for South Africa. The biggest mistake made by the National Convention was to have the provincial councils. This is proved when we hear from that corner of the House nothing but “Natal, Natal,” all the time. If they could get away from Natal for a time it would be better for the Union.

They are the only people whose revenues are affected.

We, in other parts of the Union, for our part, have had to carry on without these licences. Pietermaritzburg, with a rate of 3½d. in the £, is getting £23,000 a year from the Union Government, while in Bloemfontein the £20,000 has now been brought down to £13,000, and it will soon vanish altogether. The fact is that Natal must come into line with the rest of the Union and the sooner the better. I am sorry there are these geographical lines of demarcation between the provinces to-day. I feel sure this is not the last you have heard of the financial relations with the provinces, although some hon. members may think so. I am glad to see that the provincial councils are becoming so unpopular in the country that the time will come when hon. members will be forced to come and ask that we have no more provincial councils. In regard to education, it seems to me the best thing we can do is to put education under the control of the Union, and the sooner we do it the better for the Union and the better for the children. As far as the Free State is concerned, if we had a vote tomorrow we should do away with the provincial councils. What are the provincial councils but taxation machines? What have they given us? Nothing. Our roads are bad; our hospitals are bad, and our education is only mediocre when all is said and done. I am only speaking on behalf of the Free State, which I know something about; I am dealing with the Transvaal. The municipalities should be given greater powers in South Africa and they would do a great amount of good. We should also have county councils. I do not want to call them divisional councils as they only look after a few jackals’ tails. I want something bigger. I should like to see a county council for the area from Randfontein to Springs. In the Free State we can only develop as fast as the smallest little town. In the bigger towns we are prepared to be taxed and carry on, on our own lines, and nothing would be better for the Rand than county councils. I consider the time has come in South Africa to have another national convention. Let us sit down and argue this matter of provincial councils without any party heat. As soon as anything comes into this House, we quarrel about it. Then take the hospitals. The hospitals in South Africa are probably the worst in the world. The best hospital in South Africa is at Maseru in Basutoland. When you go in there, it costs you nothing. Hospitals should be put under the union as well as education, and if we did that, what would be left to the provincial councils? What are the provincial councils to-day? They are small parliaments. I have been a member; but I was not much impressed with the system at all. There is no work for them to do. They look for fantastic taxation. You have a strong man like you have in the Cape, as Administrator, and he can upset the whole country. Luckily, we have only had one strong Administrator in South Africa. Perhaps it would have been lucky if we had had four Sir Frederics, for, by this time, we would not have had any provincial councils left. This is a serious question for South Africa, and if we are not careful, and go on developing the provincial council system, we will get into a good deal of trouble. What we have to do is to economize and have less taxation. If we do not carry this out, the country will ask us why not? It is too big to be made a party question. It is not helping South Africa; it is strangling a lot of things in this country. The Union can look after education better than the provincial councils, and cheaper, and the coloured people would get more education. It is no use saying don’t educate the coloured man. If we do not educate the black man and the coloured man, the white man is going to come down to their level. Our roads, I think, are the worst in the British Empire. In the Free State we have no roads; since the recent heavy rains, the farmers cannot move, and cannot send their produce to market. We can’t go on like this for ever. We have a double income tax in the Free State, and we have more Government officials to-day in Bloemfontein than we had before Union. I voted for union, and we were told that under the Union Government expenses would be cut down. Now the provincial councils look after the town councils, but the town councils don’t require that—they want to be left alone. An enormous amount of good has been done in the way of education, but now the time has arrived to hand over the whole of education to the Union Government. Let the Minister take his courage in both hands—he is a coming man in South Africa, and has the respect of all parties—and let him summon a conference during the recess, and even our friends in Natal will see that it is better to do away with these artificial lines of demarcation which exist only on the map. Let us turn our faces away from federation, for there are the seeds of civil war in federation. Things are not too happy in Australia between the State and the other Governments there. National things, such as hospitals and education, should be dealt with by the nation, but our troubles will be accentuated if we have little parliaments all over the Union. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has suggested a provincial council for the Eastern Province, and now we shall have someone suggesting a provincial council for Griqualand West and so on. If we follow on that line our taxing machines will become worse and worse. We must take stock of the situation and, after the Bill has been passed, and it is a good Bill—

Except for the Natal licences.

The Minister is not responsible for that, and you must settle the matter in Durban. I do wish Natal would have a wider outlook. Durban is probably going to be the greatest town in the Southern Hemisphere, and yet the people from Durban take this small view. If your provincial councillors don’t express the views of the people, put labour men in in their place. Go and settle your quarrels in the Royal Hotel, or somewhere else, and don’t bring them here. I do hope the Minister will think over the question of calling another national conference, for now the spirit of South Africa is getting better. Now our racial quarrel is coming to an end, now political parties are being thrown into the melting pot, and new political parties will come out, it is time we settled this question, otherwise we shall get back to our provincial differences. We shall get quarrelling with Natal. We don’t want to quarrel with Natal, and Natal does not want to quarrel with us. We have a chance we never had before of settling this provincial council question. The Minister has a strong party behind him, and I hope he will do it. I am speaking my own mind only, and not for any political party on this question. The time has come to look into the whole question sternly and to try and settle it, otherwise it will become a grave danger to South Africa.

It seems to me, for the purpose of this argument, that the hon. member who has just spoken and myself should change places. He has put in a strong plea that is hostile to the provincial councils, and I propose to take a line in defence of them. Until something more suitable has been evolved to take the place of provincial councils, I think it would be a grave mistake to abolish them. That provincial councils have been extravagant in the past there is no denying. We have had epidemics of extravagance. Local bodies, private individuals, and even the late Government were guilty of the mistake of extravagance. The late Minister of Finance realized that, and set himself vigorously to stem the tide which had overtaken this country, and in that process he did many unpopular things, but he put up a stern and desperate fight to remedy the position, and to a large extent, I think, he was successful. The present Minister has to thank the past Minister of Finance for having a legacy of a full purse left to him when he came into office. He can now go along merrily untrammelled with many of the difficulties his predecessor had, and can follow up his policy and put it into effect. I would like to warn the Minister that he is treading a dangerous road.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the House adjourned I had just commenced my speech and I will be excused, perhaps, for repeating the first two or three sentences which I had uttered. I would like to preface what I have to say by stating that I am not speaking and do not pretend to be speaking for the rest of my party. I think that must be obvious. I said that, until something better had been evolved to take the place of provincial councils, I thought it would be a great mistake to abolish them. Provincial councils, we all have to admit, have been extravagant during the last few years, but they are not singular in that respect. We know that throughout the country, throughout all our municipal and other public bodies, a spirit of extravagance has existed which spread right throughout private life also, and the past Government was also guilty of a certain amount of extravagance. Our late Minister of Finance realized that and he resolutely set himself to stem the tide which was so seriously threatening the country. He put up a grim fight, and it is due, very largely due, to that fight which he put up, that the present Minister of Finance has a full purse to carry out his policy. Many members on the opposite side of the House have given expression to this phrase “Ons het net op die gelukkige tyd ingekom.” They have been fortunate in coming in at this particular time. I would just like to say that I am one of those who have a very large measure of faith in our present Minister of Finance and I feel sure he is going a long way to justify the responsible post which he fills, but I warn him that he is on a dangerous road and his danger lies there on the Labour benches. We have had it from the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay)—and it has been echoed by other members on that side of the House—that the Government should proceed and pawn the credit of this country to the full in order that they may promote education, that they may enhance wages, and improve the abodes of the working man. They say nothing is squandered which is given in support of these objects. The member for Pretoria (West) went a step further; he said that no money which was spent on education was wasted. But they fail to discriminate between money which is wasted and money which is wisely spent. We on this side are just as keen upon the promotion of education as members on the other side, and we do protest against, and we do repudiate the suggestion, that we are indifferent to the education of the childhood and youth of this country. The member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) charged the late Government with being unsympathetic toward the education of the poor. He said that the deliberate policy of members on this side of the House, who, he implied, represented the wealthy classes, set a tone to our educational laws for the avowed purpose of excluding the poor and educating the well-to-do.

From higher education.

I do think the implication against the South African party was uncalled for; it was unjust and unmerited. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) when he said the provincial councils in the past had done a lot of useful work. They have advanced education and in various other ways they have done good work. I have to admit that throughout the country, in my district as well, people are opposed to the continuance of the provincial system. I have never pretended that I was not in favour of the present system. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has also intimated that there is a strong feeling in the country against the provincial councils. I accept that, I think it is right.

I did not say in the country, I said in my own constituency.

The reason for this strong antipathy to the provincial system is that people take up the position that if the councils were abolished the unbearable burden of taxation would be removed from their shoulders. That is not likely to happen. If the responsibility is transferred to the central Government in regard to education they must retain the staff, the teachers and the schools. The same has to be said in regard to roads, hospitals and bridges; all of them will have to be paid for just as they are now. What will remain on which to effect the hoped for economy? Just the salaries of individual members of these councils. The £120 a year which is paid to them does not cover their work; a great deal of their work is honorary; they give considerable gratuitous service. We would dispense with a useful lot of men who are doing very good work. That is the only saving we should effect. Other than that we should have to retain the administration in the various provinces, so that I cannot see where we should effect any real saving. I am convinced that the departure from the present system would strike a serious blow at domestic legislation. I should like to give an instance of my meaning. A little while ago I brought a measure in this House at the wish of my constituents in regard to the erection of a public building. I got up and stated my case, believing in my simplicity that I had only to get this matter heard to ensure its going through. But to my surprise as a novice, a number of members got up with amendments and they pleaded more eloquently than I had been able to do, with the result that nothing was done. So I say that any local matter coming before a House of this kind would have very little chance of getting through.

Why not?

We are hoping to extend our borders, and I think it would be unsound at this stage to lay down a policy of centralization which would have to apply to outlying portions of the Union. We must have local bodies to meet local requirements. We have had two commissions which have gone into this question, both of them hostile to this provincial system. The first was the Jagger commission, in 1916, I think, which suggested that education should be taken out of the hands of the provincial councils, which should be left to deal only with roads and bridges and the like. To me the system suggested by that commission seems to be infinitely more costly than the present one. You would still have to have a central channel; you would have to create machinery for each of these authorities, and the position from a financial point of view would not in any way be improved. With regard to the Baxter commission, I will touch upon that at a later stage; but for the moment I should like to refer to the financial aspect of the Bill before us just now. A true lead has been taken by the Minister of Finance in subsidizing the various provinces upon the capital system for education purposes. That is perfectly sound, but I do not see why a differentiation should be permitted between the Cape Province and the rest of the Union. It seems very unfair to the Cape, and I cannot understand the justification for it. We have 13 heads under which the provincial councils may tax. I think that is too many. I think the income tax is the best of all taxes we can impose for all purposes. Whenever more revenue is required this is the tax which most easily lends itself to the purpose; we simply touch the spring or button, so to speak, and the necessary amount is derived. This would be a much sounder way than multiplying the heads of taxation, which seems to me to be very unsound. I should further like to ask the Minister how he proposes collecting income tax for the various provincial councils. Is he going to use his own machinery, or is separate machinery to be set up by the various councils for collecting this tax? With further regard to education as I know it in the Cape Province, an hon. member suggested that it would be a good thing if we were better acquainted in many cases with provincial council work. In my opinion it would be better if hon. members were better acquainted with the conditions in the backveld, in the remote districts. We know that farmers living four to seven miles apart from one another have the greatest difficulty in providing education for their children. The Baxter report suggested abolishing our private farm schools. These schools have proved a most useful medium in the education of our children, and in our district I know now of many farmers who have private tutors on their own places, educating their children without any assistance from the central Government, as far as I know, and those who cannot afford a tutor are in a very bad position indeed. The point which we have to decide is whether the children are to be sent to some central school, or whether the school is to be taken to the children. It is very undesirable that the former course should be adopted, and children from the age of seven or eight years sent to a central school. Parents who live miles away would be robbed of the companionship of their children at that early age, in order to conform to the conditions suggested under the Baxter report, and the homes in the back veld would be drained. For that reason I do not think that that portion of the report was practicable or desirable. There, also, I would draw a distinction between the farmers in the remote corners of our district, and the people in the towns with palatial schools just across the way, with splendid opportunities and free education—and yet these are the people who are shouting loudest—while the people in the back veld have to put up with the conditions I have referred to, and have to send their children to a board school at a cost of £50 to £100 a year. I do not think the people in the towns understand the position properly. I hope the Minister will endeavour to meet our wishes.

I think that hon. members opposite must now surely acknowledge in the end that their intention was to economize in such a way that many of our farm schools would have to be closed. They clearly did not consider as economy the great difficulties and expense that we have in the country to give our children the necessary education. Seeing we pay the same taxation, not only direct school tax but also indirect school tax, while the policy of the former Government had to lead to our having a land tax also imposed on us—then we must acknowledge that the farmers actually pay the largest part for education and benefit the least from it. I hope hon. members opposite will now acknowledge that this Government has now put a stop to that. As regards education, now I am disappointed to see that I can find nothing in this Bill which fixes the relation with regard to agricultural education for the future. I shall be very glad to have a statement from the hon. Minister about this. In Durban the provisional agreement was made, and under the agreement technical education, similarly to agricultural education, has been entrusted to the Union. This agreement has been renewed by the Free State Provincial Council. Well, whether it is in the lands of the provincial council, divisional councils, or of the Union, I should like to know what the position with reference to this will be in the future. We pay to-day some millions of pounds to again get our sons from the towns to the countryside and to the farms, but what is the Government doing to-day to keep our sons on the farms and in the country by making farm life attractive? There are two great things which weigh very much with me in this connection. In the first place I should like to know whether the Government has yet gone into the matter of getting the proper countryside education and the proper countryside school. We have our agricultural school to day. I am disappointed to see such a very small sum on the estimates for bursaries for agricultural schools to encourage children to take the agricultural education courses.

The hon. member is now discussing a vote on the estimates. This is not in order at this stage.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether steps are being taken to see that the right kind of teacher is being trained for the farm schools. I feel sure that we are to-day in our agricultural schools creating well-trained technical men, but I do not know whether they are actually the right men to give the children agricultural education that suits them in the life on the farms. I should be glad if the hon. Minister will enlighten us on this point. But my chief point—and I am thinking particularly of the Free State—is the system of education. I believe only about two per cent. of the children who receive primary education go on to secondary education, and of those who enjoy secondary education, only ten per cent, again go on to higher or university education. In what way does the countryside now benefit from education under the existing system? Well, as has been said only about one-tenth of the children who receive primary education go on to enjoy secondary education. Why do we mostly take our children from school after they have passed standard six? Because the education which they thereafter receive does not help them in farm life. Our system of education has not been instituted for the purpose of training our children for life on the farms. The position is no longer as of old, that a man has from three to six thousand morgen of land and just sits on his stoep and smokes and leaves the farm to run itself. To-day everyone must receive a practical training to be able to make a living on a farm. Twenty-five per cent. of those who have had higher education prosecute their studies possibly in one or other direction, but 75 per cent. return again to the farms. And what have they learnt in the four years which can be useful to them on the farms? No, the existing system does an injustice to the children of the countryside. We send the children to the village to be educated, which is of no use to the farmer. Everyone hankers after the village. But our children are not given the right education for living on the farm, and to encourage them to remain on the farm. I am not against the children passing their matric, but what is the use of the matric for a farmer? The unfortunate position is that a farmer’s son is taught to wear a tweed suit, a stiff collar and polished boots, instead of learning what is of importance to farm life, namely, how to milk cows, to shear sheep, to look after lambs and to cultivate a small piece of ground as well as possible and how many cattle can be kept on a small piece of ground. And when the children after three or four years come back from the town then they have learnt to go to the bioscopes. I hope the Government will yet declare the bioscope a pest. Of the lads who come back to the farms. I think only about five per cent. have remained capable farmers’ sons. This is the mistake we parents make, and the mistakes of the system of education. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister what the position will be in the future in this connection. We must have a thorough training for farm work. A doctor is practically trained, other people are educated to certain occupations and our farmers’ sons must be trained for the farming industry. We are spending millions of pounds to-day to bring people back to the farms, but as has been said, I am disappointed that I find no indication of what the Government intends doing to obtain the right class of teachers, proper agricultural schools, for the education of our farm lads.

I had the privilege of representing my constituency in the provincial council for ten years, and so I claim to have a little knowledge, at any rate, of the working in that council. I wish, in the first place, to congratulate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), on the speech he made in this House to-day. I think it is the most sensible speech that has emanated from the Labour benches during this session. I only wish his views, which he was careful to state were his own personal views, were the views of the party he belongs to; because I think he rose to greater heights to-day than the members on the cross-benches usually do. He took up a very high attitude in connection with this question of the abolition of provincial councils. It seems to me that to-day if we look at the country, which it is our duty to legislate for, we are separated by the most unnatural divisions. We have the Orange River, the Drakensberg—most unnatural divisions in a country of this vast size—and that reminds me of a speech made, I think in 1917, by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at the Savoy Hotel in London. In the native areas that speech is often referred to. He made the statement that Europe had tried to civilize Africa from the north, but owing to the Sahara desert and the fact that Europe was governed by many nations in the north, had failed, and that the day had come when we, in the south, should try to civilize Africa. And that is what I feel in this country, that we have a duty, to try to civilize Africa from the south. There I feel again that in these unnatural cleavages that exist in this country, of provincial councils, of unnatural geographical divisions, it is wrong that we should divide ourselves into these little provinces, and I think the time has come for us, instead of perpetuating the memories of the past, and saying I belong to Natal or the Free State, as the case may be, we might say “I belong to the Union of South Africa,” and we are going to try to establish a new white civilization in South Africa, that will be a credit to the northern races which we represent. That is my attitude. I think the provincial councils have done an excellent duty to this country, but I think the time has come when we should revise the whole position, and see whether that experiment has not passed the experimental stage, and I would like to claim, as one of my supporters, Sir Frederic de Waal, the Administrator of the Cape Province, who has been one of the greatest champions of the provincial system, and who, I think, has been a credit to the position he has occupied in this country. In giving evidence before the Provincial Commission in 1915, Sir Frederic de Waal was asked—

I make bold to say that the provincial councils have finished their duties. They are now legislating for donkeys and a few other matters. The legislative work they have performed has been a credit to the country, but the original object in appointing the councils was to try and consolidate the carrying out of minor matters of local interest. The provincial councils have done that, to a certain extent, but if we continue to keep the country divided by maintaining the provincial system, we are gradually going to drift apart, instead of coming together as one nation with the duty of civilizing Africa. The matter I wish to appeal to the Minister upon is that of native education. I sat on the Native Education Commission appointed by the Cape “Provincial Council; that commission took a good deal of evidence, so that I feel that I have a certain right to speak on that question. The Minister, unfortunately, is following the wrong track in this instance. Why does he not take the power to control native education into the hands of the Union Government? Why not introduce a uniform policy? I know it would be acceptable to the natives. It is only on lines such as taking the control of native education into the hands of the Union Government that we shall be able to control native policy, and thus escape trouble in the future. The Free State is spending very little on native education, but if the Free State natives have to pay taxation for this purpose, they will resent that money being applied for the benefit of natives in the other provinces.

The Native, Affairs Department will see that they get their fair share.

But if you give them back their fair share and say that all native taxation raised in one province must be spent in that province it would be a dangerous policy and, therefore, I say there should be a central body to control these funds.

It is going to be so.

If you suddenly raise the educational fund in the Free State from £5,000 to £50,000 the position would be serious. I look at the question from another aspect. We are going to help the natives to control themselves. The last Government tried to organize a system of native councils in the King William’s Town district—one of the most enlightened districts outside the council areas—but they failed. In the Transkei Territories we have local government for the natives, and the system has proved very satisfactory. If you want to build up a system of native control, and encourage the natives to take an interest in their own development, why not allow the Transkei Native Council to give advice on native education? I believe if you give the Transkei Native Council this power you will encourage the natives in other areas to accept the system of local government. We should gradually build up a system to help the natives to realize their responsibilities. An hon. member who spoke this afternoon said that our great duty was to educate our children to the very pinnacle of education, and, he recommended that we should build up a race of professional men. But who are they to live upon? Surely not as parasites on the natives? When Lord Milner left Cape Town in February last he recommended that the natives should be taught to cultivate better—

I think those are the views of 100 per cent. of South Africans who have studied this question. The great mistake we make is that we are educating the natives before we civilize them. Every piccanin is getting education up to the fourth or fifth standard, but he is not being civilized and that is where we largely fail. The two most important matters we have to deal with in this House are the education and the upliftment of the white man, and the upliftment of the black man. I feel that in leaving this task to lower bodies, we are failing in our duty. I appeal to the Minister of Finance to consider this question very carefully, and to see whether it is not in the interests of the country to make a bold move, so that native education should be controlled by this House in order to prevent different systems arising in different provinces, as that would help to keep the committees in a divided state. Let us realize that the provincial system has not tended to unite us in the past.

I did not intend taking part in this debate because I did not think that we could possibly expect the Minister of Finance to do any better in the circumstances regarding the treatment of the provincial councils than he here proposes, and because I know that he is acting in the best interests of the country although there are little matters here and there where I differ from him. The reason why I say a few words is because the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has chased up a few hares which we have to catch and kill. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has also partly spoken in a similar way. It is said from time to time and in this debate, it has been frequently said, that the time has come for the provincial councils to be abolished because they are a failure and that this institution is the great mistake that the National Convention made. It is said that the provincial councils stand in the way of the unity of South Africa and that they drive us further apart. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has made remarks here, and I feel certain that he will appreciate that they are quite superficial, when he reflects about the matter. He has said that we have artificial and unnatural divisions which separate us from each other. I believe that the national convention acted wisely, I will not say that the provincial councils cannot be altered, but the national convention brought them into life because it was sensible enough to take count of the history of the country. We cannot get away from it that the four provinces are four historical entities and we cannot call them artificial distinctions. We shall not be acting in the best interests of the people if we do not take into account the peculiarities of the history of the separate provinces and the historical lines of division. A hankering exists here in South Africa and also in other countries to seek union along the way of uniformity as we have frequently heard in the debate. This is a disastrous mistake. The Labour party says that very unnatural lines of division exist which must be removed. I don’t often agree with them and in connection with this matter also I cannot agree with them. That sort of cosmopolitanism, to wipe out these historical lines of division, will not pay in South Africa. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) was especially illogical in this debate. He said that he was going to vote against the colour bar. I am also personally opposed to everything which interferes with the natural right of the people to develop. But we can do nothing good tor South Africa if we do not take account of a natural colour line. I think that we will much sooner come to a veritable union in the country—union which is of a more spiritual nature—if we carefully respect the historic peculiarities of the various provinces. The provinces are often contemptuously referred to here, e.g., Natal. Natal has, of course, its peculiarities which have been mentioned here and yet I feel if we really want unity in the country we must take count of the historical development of Natal and we must not try to reach unity by wanting to make everything uniform. I see this tendency in European countries, which are only small, and it has there been learned that uniformity puts a brake on the development of the country. I should like to give an example. After the French revolution there was a tendency in Holland not to take count of the historical provinces. The result was utterly disastrous so that a strong feeling subsequently arose that there should be provincial government, and that the national aims would in that way be better established. It was proved that it was necessary to acknowledge decentralization to come to the historical lines upon which we have developed. We must acknowledge that the provinces possess peculiar historical characteristics. It is an important matter where you have to do with education. There the desire is strong to have education brought under the central Government, because it is the tendency of all central Governments to take all the power into their hands. The result thereof is that the actual rights of the people are in the end abused. Education is a matter which in the first place belongs to the home. The hon. member; for (Bloemfontein (North) said that it is a national matter which should be looked after by the people as a whole. That is a pure Platonic idea, but if he carries out that view to its full consequences then the State is justified in taking the child away from the parents, and the result of that would be the undermining of the family life which lies at the basis of the national life. We must most strongly protest against that. We must leave the parent his rights in education. I speak about it because there is a strong tendency to take away the rights of the parent and for the State to appropriate all rights to itself. The State has its responsibility but it must not exercise it to the detriment of the rights of the parent. The tendency to appropriate everything and also primary education to the State is an attempt to make everything uniform and the result of that will be detrimental to the people and the country. The Minister has in his speech also mentioned that certain parts of primary education, technical or industrial education, will come under the Union Government. This will be discussed when the education vote on the estimates is on. But I mention this because it is of very great importance in this connection and in view of this tendency to declare that uniformity is unity. There is a strong tendency to bring the whole system of education under the Union Government. The rights of the provincial council are being encroached upon. We have heard that the provincial council of the Free State unanimously protests against industrial education being taken over by the Union Government. The alteration has principally been made for financial and administrative reasons. From a purely pedagogic point of view I cannot see that much can be said for it. It has been said that the provincial councils waste too much money. It is alleged on the grounds of the figures in the Baxter report, but it is clear to me that we must be careful of the figures which are given by that report. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) emphasized these figures. I feel a little hesitating about accepting the figures of the report because I found them wrong with regard to the Free State. I will prove this. The Baxter report states that £207.8 per pupil is spent in the Free State in connection with the education of teachers. According to the figures of the Director of Education of the Free State it appears that the commission was calculated upon the bursary which is paid to the pupil at school in the Free State in the actual costs of education of the teachers already in the Normal College and this amount was then divided by the number of pupil-teachers there were actually in the college, although there were 470 pupils who received those bursaries. If we take the actual cost and divide it by the number of students who were then at college at Bloemfontein to train as teachers we find that the actual cost per head was only £120. When a commission makes such a big mistake we must be very careful in using the figures of the commission to support our statements and arguments. The report and the figures about the costs of inspection are also inaccurate. The commission puts this at 7s., while the education department states that it is only 5s. per pupil. I know that the Free State Provincial Council is doing its very utmost to economize. They sent officials round to retrench but at certain places it was found necessary to spend more. I know of one case where I said to the commission that the best way to economize would be to appoint another teacher for a certain school and the commission found the next day that that was so, and that it was economy in the interests of the people to appoint another teacher to that school. I want to repeat that I am afraid of this appropriating of rights belonging to the provincial councils. As I have said the Free State Provincial Council objected to the central Government taking over industrial education. We have experience in the Free State of what the Union Government is doing in that connection. We have two industrial schools there which come under the Union Government and other similar schools which come under the provincial council. The costs of the schools of the Union Government are much higher than those of the provincial councils and the latter succeed better. I do not want to go into this matter further, but it is one that is very strongly felt in the Free State and which makes a man understand why the Free State have protested against this education being taken away from the Free State. It is done for financial and management reasons because I do not see how it can be justified on pedagogic grounds. All our education is in part technical education and for that reason it cannot be taken out of the hands of the provincial councils. We have heard here this afternoon that this is probably the last Provincial Act of this nature which we shall have to consider. I do not share the optimism of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth). The money which is hereby given to the provinces appears sufficient to put us in the position to maintain the status quo but it will not help us to go ahead much. In the Free State we cannot say that the money was wasted in the past. 50 per cent. of the children are in the farm schools and 20 per cent. of the children are in schools with one teacher. What is the status quo in those schools? The position in some is still wretched. We find bad and unhealthy buildings and bad benches in the schools. I can in some places touch the roof, which is made of bad iron. The windows are broken and when the dust storms come the children have to close the windows with bags. I quite recently found similar conditions.

What was the provincial council doing?

They did their best to improve the position but they were so knee-haltered by the former Government that they could not in the least put matters right. Let us take the transport of the children to school. I do not know what effect it will have on the future generation, because the donkey system is in use everywhere. Some of the children have in this way to ride four or five miles to school and back every day. That is the status quo and that we can continue, but I do not see how we can progress. I thought that we should see a large step in advance in the matter of country education, but, unfortunately, the money went to the towns where we have buildings that cost twice as much as they should have, especially when the work was done by the public works department, and local tenders were not called for. We have heard here of a case of Denmark, but I want to point out that the circumstances in Denmark are quite different to ours. The population there live close together while we here have to do with great distances. If we want a better educational system on the country side then we shall have to vote more money for it, so that conditions can be improved, then we shall be in the position to introduce a system to teach our sons to farm smaller pieces of ground and to compete with their fellow farmers in other parts of the world. I fear, however, that we shall not be able to continue long on this basis—the status quo—unless the schedule of contributions and taxes is altered. A further extension of education—I do not refer to the increase in the number of pupils because provision is made for that—is excluded because we shall not at first be able to adopt the status quo for long. There are teachers who do not possess exceptional capacity. The struggle is to improve that position, but it means higher salaries every year, and that will increase the costs. It will become more and more and we must not be astonished if we find in a short time that the provincial councils are agitating for more money. I hope that this tendency in South Africa to make everything uniform will be opposed by the granting to the provinces, and ultimately to each parent, of the right of exercising authority over education and the training of the child, which they ought to have. Although I have had to make these observations I feel that the Minister of Finance had no other way out, and that we should congratulate him upon the improvement he has effected in connection with the treatment of the provincial councils.

The most striking part of the debate is the difference of opinion about the abolition of the provincial councils. Almost every time after an hon. member opposite has got up to plead for the abolition of the provincial councils another member has got up there and has pleaded for the retention thereof, and on this side of the House the same difference of opinion exists. No better example of it could be found than what took place yesterday. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) rose and said that we should retain the provincial councils at all costs, while his neighbour, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), shortly thereafter declared himself in favour of the immediate abolition of them. What is then the proper course for us to follow? That very difference of opinion, even between the leaders of one and the same party, clearly proves that we have here to do with a difficult problem and that it is a question which will have to be tackled with the greatest care when the time once comes to bring it before Parliament. As for me I regard the institution of the provincial council as one of the foundation stones of the constitution and think that it would be dangerous to remove one of the corner stones, because if we once commence to tamper with that we do not know where it may end, because then other corner stones may also become loose and the whole Union would come into danger. It is, perhaps, true that the provincial councils have done certain things and passed certain ordinances which were wrong, and sometimes I might almost say were irresponsible, but that does not take away from the fact that in general the councils have looked after the interests of education for the province that they represented. As for this Bill I just wish to say a few words about native education. Native education, at any rate the bearing of the expense thereof, has been transferred by the Minister from the provincial councils to the Union and the expenditure will in future be borne by the treasury, under direct supervision of the Minister of Finance. I believe that this is a wise step, because thereby an end will be made to the idea which had become current that the education of native children has at present to be paid for by money from the white. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) went to so far as to represent this as if, because money is devoted to the education of natives, the education of white children would be neglected thereby. I must most strongly protest against this allegation. We must see whether there is any justification for this statement, just enquire whether the natives contribute anything to the treasury. I agree that the sums of money that are mentioned in the Bill are the amounts that are necessary for native education. I just want to mention what the natives themselves pay in taxation. In the Transvaal they pay about £440,000 in hut tax. To that must be added about £350,000 in the Transvaal for passports, money which is paid to the provincial authorities.

That is paid by the employers.

That is so, but it goes without saying that at the general regulation of wages for natives, proper count is taken of the fact that the monies must be deducted that have to be paid for the passes. So the money for passes come in the long run actually out of the earnings of the natives. Now in the Transvaal only £46,000 is spent on native education. In the Free State the position is that the native taxation produces about £70,000, and £5,000 is spent on their education. In Natal the revenue is £220,000, while only £49,000 is spent on native education. I can therefore not understand how any one can make the statement that natives are being educated by white people’s money. An astonishingly large balance is left over. The only province with respect to which such a remark could possibly be made with any justice is the Cape Province. I find that there only £120,000 is paid in hut tax, while £240,000 is demanded by the province to cover the cost of native education. Therefore the statement would only be justified in the Cape Province that the money paid by the whites is used to teach natives. In the other provinces it cannot be said. I approve the Minister’s step in allowing the money for native education in the future to come out of the treasury. Now as to the employers tax about which one hears so much and so often. It is as far as I know not known in the other provinces, but only occurs in the Transvaal. As the representative of a farmers’ district in the Transvaal I must say that the tax is actually not much felt by the farming population. Why not? Because eight servants, namely eight natives, are exempt, and they must moreover work for a full year. Now we know that usually a farm native only works three months in the year, so that therefore only four natives are necessary to do the work of one during the whole year. Thus a person could have 32 natives at work before he comes under the tax. But the industries and mines are not in such a favourable position. I know mines even in my district where the tax presses fairly heavily, and where last year the tax actually took away a large portion of the profits. Now sub-section 4 says that the subsidy payable to provincial councils in terms of the section shall be reduced by an amount equal to the revenue obtained by the province from the employers tax in respect of mining undertakings. What object had the Minister when he incorporated this section? The motive, the object, therefore can be twofold. It may be that the tax is not favoured by the Minister, and that the hon. Minister has therefore said: right, I shall give the provinces the power of imposing the employers tax, but they shall not make much profit out of it. Now the employers tax comes for the most part from the mines. Certainly ¾ or ⅞ is paid by the mines and the other portions by the industries. Now what is the intention of the Minister? If his intention was to discourage the provincial councils from imposing the tax I should be glad. It would in my opinion be a good motive. But the reason may also have been to impose on the mines in this way as it were by a back door a certain tax and to get revenue from the mines by saying that the tax is not directly imposed by the Union but by means of the provincial council. That is the other motive that the Minister may have been influenced by to include the provision referred to in the Bill, to in this way get a few thousand pounds extra out of the mines. I hope that the Minister in his answer will deal with this point. Now it has been said here, I think by the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), that if the Baxter report is carried out there will be no other taxation left to the provinces except the land tax. Well, I do not think the statement is correct, because on page 85 of the report, after the subjects are named which are not suited for taxation by the provincial councils the following are mentioned as suitable: transfer duty, proceeds of liquor licences, wheel tax, motor tax, racing tax, fees of hospitals, and some others. How therefore can the hon. member for Albert say that by applying the recommendations of the Baxter report the land tax only will remain over I cannot understand.

There are considerably more items of taxation for the provincial council.

Yes, taxes are also mentioned in the report which are not considered so suited as the poll tax and the auctioneers tax. I was somewhat disappointed in reading section 16. It leaves to the provincial councils the fixing of salaries of teachers. We all remember very well what an astounding fuss was made about this last year, and how it was insisted upon in order to get uniformity of salaries. This was also urged in the various reports, in the Baxter report, in the so well known Hofmeyr report, and in the report of the education committee of the Transvaal. All these commissions contain men of experience in educational matters, and all the commissions insist on uniformity of teachers salaries throughout the whole Union. I really expected that the Minister would have seen his way of doing something in this direction of gradually getting to uniformity in that respect. Another point in the Baxter report about which a considerable noise was made is the number of children in small schools. It was stated that in the Cape Province alone the carrying out of the Baxter report would mean the closing of 1,200 schools. I do not think that this can be proved. In the Transvaal the smallest number of children for a Government school is 20, and yet the statistics show that in proportion to the population there are in the Transvaal more schools than in the Cape Province, while the number of children in the Transvaal who are not at school is calculated at 4,500, and we have recently heard it said that the number for the Cape Province is about 20,000. It is therefore not proved that the small schools bring more children to school.

It shows that the conditions differ here from the Transvaal.

Yes, I admit that, but the Baxter report did not want to make it a law of the Medes and Persians in fixing a minimum of 20 children, but where circumstances were such as prevail in the Cape with its thinly populated areas and long distances this figure could have been reduced to 15, and in certain circumstances even less. I was surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) this afternoon. With his usual eloquence he said that we should now follow the right course in educational matters, because now education was being put on a sound footing. He says that the time has come that we know exactly where we stand and need no longer be concerned, and that everything will now go well. What change, then, has been made by the Minister? Subsidies are being granted now to the various provinces as recommended in the Baxter report, so the Baxter report was not so bad, anyhow. But last year the hon. member for Kroonstad, with his usual fire of eloquence, represented the Baxter report as an unstatesmanlike and incompetent report which would lead the whole of our education in a wrong direction, and to-day he gets up and pleads for the report. I am glad about it because if the hon. Minister pays great attention to the Baxter report he will be in good company; then he will be on the right track. To know, for instance, What the educational world thinks of the report, I just wish to quote what was said last year at the teachers’ congress of high schools at Potchefstroom by Mr. le Roux, M.A., head of the Potchefstroom high school. He says—

And this is the evidence of prominent educationalists. And where the Minister for the most part also acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Baxter report we can with safety say that the report is of great value. But my disappointment is rather great that the Minister has not entirely removed the employers tax. Then, but I do not wish to press the matter, I do not like to see double taxation such as the poll tax and the income tax. But I admit in order that the provincial councils can properly carry out their administration, it was perhaps necessary for the Minister not to make any change therein.

We must I think be thankful that something is being done by this Bill to stop the agitation against the provincial councils which has been going on in recent years. And the feeling against the provincial councils by putting the relation between the provinces and the State on a better footing with will thereby be lessened. In the past politics were introduced into the provincial councils and we felt that it was in consequence of the wrong financial relation between the provinces and the State. The great reason for that is that the provincial councils in some of the provinces dared to put their hand in the people’s pockets and the consequence is the agitation for their abolition. As a past member of the provincial council I wish to state here to-night that the provincial councils have justified their existence and if we cannot trust them with the raising of taxes then we have no right to entrust to them the education of our children. I, however, feel very sorry that the Minister does not propose in this Bill to equalize the scales of salaries of the teachers in the various provinces. In the northern part in Bechuanaland I feel that we were treated very unfairly in the matter of salaries as compared with the rest of the Union. We train the teachers but they go over the border into the Transvaal because they get a higher salary there. The Transvaal takes no trouble in training teachers but only makes the salary a little higher and all our teachers flock there. We especially feel it where the Transvaal schools are not more than 5 miles from some of our schools. The Transvaal teacher gets ten per cent. more salary and he gets a better school and requisites. It is impossible to expect of our teachers to remain in the Cape Province and they leave with the result that we never keep our teachers more than six months. I admit on the other hand that the provincial councils have wasted money in certain respects, e.g., with the building of a house such as Highclere for the Administrator of the Cape Province. It cost £15,000 and during the last five years the maintenance thereof has reached £8,630. The Administrator’s house thus after five years costs us £23,630 and this is unjust and unfair while children are still not at school. It is not right to take the money of the taxpayer and use it in that way. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is looking at me. I was one of the members of the provincial council who voted against it. His own party voted for it. I voted against it and I, therefore have the right to-day to talk. Much has been said here about native education and I see that here in the Cape Province no less than £240,000 has been spent on it. The amount does not sound very large but I should like to know from the hon. Minister what the natives pay for that education. Here in the Cape Province they pay no tax to the provincial council and the natives in the reserves, also pay nothing to the divisional councils because they live on Crown land. Is it right to use the money of the white man for their education while the white man’s own children are not at school? We must see to it that the native puts his hand into his own pocket for the education of his children. In Bechuanaland the natives pay 10s. and of that the divisional council get 2s. for maintaining the roads. One of the taxes which is given to the provincial council under schedule 1 is the wheel tax and this the native does not even pay because the tax is only applicable if the vehicle is used outside the locations and not on Crown land. The whites pay it however. It is wrong to use the taxes which are paid for the education of the native. Then there is another point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, the eradication of noxious weeds must come under the central Government as stated by the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). We have been given a mandate in the Cape Province to eradicate the “boete” bush (Xanthium spinosum). We have tired ourselves scuffling but in the Transvaal it was not a noxious weed. They are a little higher than we are with the result that the seed washes down to us and we tired ourselves out in vain scuffling until eventually we gave it up. This is a matter which appertains to the central Government which can compel the eradication throughout the whole country. But if it is to go on as at present we shall subsequently have to abandon our farm as the farmers in Graaff-Reinet have to do where the prickly pear has taken possession.

I think this Bill has been discussed from pretty well every angle. To a certain extent I hesitate to stand up. I know the Natal point of view has been ably put by many speakers. At the same time I would like to urge on the Minister the suggestion thrown out that the question of licences be settled between the provincial council and the municipalities. The municipalities of Natal have had vested in them the right of this revenue since 1854. Unfortunately they were not consulted when the decision was come to to transfer them to the provincial council. I don’t intend to cover the road which has already been covered in regard to this matter. One of the principal reasons why I wish to speak to-night was to commend the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I am one of those South Africans born in the country with the South African spirit, and it is that spirit we have to cultivate, and if we come together in a convention such as is suggested, we might readjust our perspective and see some of our difficulties which have to be overcome and, having realized this, come to an understanding. I welcome most sincerely the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and I hope that it will be very seriously considered.

When the Minister of Finance was speaking the other day he suggested that if the criticisms were immoderate on this Bill he was prepared to scrap the Bill and, as he suggested, he was going to hand us over to the “Tiger.” I think he should have recollected that we were looking forward to a perfect solution of the provincial council problem. We had heard that he had found a solution, and we naturally showed our disappointment by our severe criticism of the Bill that he put in front of us. We were somewhat in the position of men who had been invited to a banquet, and when they arrived there the Minister of Finance had provided them with a ham sandwich. He was going to take away, he suggested, the ham sandwich, and now we are only criticizing the ham sandwich, and we have explained to him that we prefer that to nothing at all. That is the way I view the criticism we have made of this Bill during the last day or two. We agree that there are many improvements in this Bill on the old system. More particularly we like the basis of the subsidy. We like the suggestion of the Baxter report that the subsidy should be based on educational attendance, and in this regard I would like to join issue with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), who suggested that it should be based on enrolment. To my mind that is a most fatal method of basing the subsidy, because when you base it on attendance you base it on fact, but when you base it on enrolment there is no sound foundation whatever, as there is no proof that the enrolment in any school bears any exact proportion to the attendance, and I would point out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) that in the Baxter report such factors as epidemics, weather, etc., were all taken into account, because it is based on previous attendance, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister of Finance will remain firm and see that the subsidy is based on attendance and not on enrolment. While dealing with the question of education, we have been constantly accused of wanting to stifle education. Nothing, as far as I know, is farther from the minds of hon. members on this side, than a desire to stifle education. What we say is that money has been wasted by the educational authorities which might have been better spent on developing and extending education. The money we have wasted would have gone a long way to help on the cause of education, and, to my mind, that is the sound way of looking at it. Education is of such great value that it is most important that no money which is put up for education should be wasted. Two or three members have discussed the clause relating to the employees tax, and the members on the cross-benches have expressed the view that they would have liked to have seen the tax applied to the mines as well as to other employees. We, as a body, say that the tax, whoever it is applied to, is bad. We do not quite see why the mining houses should be exempted. We say that the tax should have been obliterated altogether and that it should not have been permitted to the provincial councils, and I do hope that the Minister of Finance will see his way to take it out of the power of the provincial councils to inflict that objectionable tax upon us. In introducing the second reading, the Minister occasionally took up the position that the provinces would not permit it. It seems to me that we are the supreme governing body in this country, and the provincial councils have to do what Parliament considers is wise and in the best interests of the people. They must not dictate to this House, as to what form of taxation we allow to them. In speaking on the same subject a few days ago, I deprecated having any form of tax that could be levied by both the Union Government and by the provincial government, and I was very sorry to see that in this respect the Minister had again succumbed and allowed them to inflict an additional income tax on the people of this country. I agree that the tax is the best you can levy on any classes of people, but I do not see how the Minister can possibly adjust his income tax fairly, if he has four other bodies dipping in and upsetting the just balance as between one man and another man. I still further do not see how you can possibly allow them to levy a tax on dividends, he is eliminating the form of income tax in his own budget. I think, therefore, that it should be deleted from this Bill. Further, I do not see how it is possible to levy a provincial dividend tax. In the first place, dividends are not paid in exact proportion to profits.

It exists to-day in the Free State.

Well, it would be interesting to see the machinery. Unfortunately for me, I do not trade in the Free State, but I may say that I get profits, but they are evidently not taxed there. If you take a company trading in three or four provinces, how can you tax dividends in any one province when the company may be making a loss in that province and a profit in another? Now the dividend tax, I take it, if it is to be levied fairly, could not be levied on any dividends paid by that company if a loss had been sustained in that particular part of the country. It is a very difficult tax to adjust, and, I think, that if the dividend tax is deleted from the Union Budget, it should also be deleted from the provincial budget. We are told that we ought to accept these unsatisfactory forms of taxation, duplicate taxation is one instance, because otherwise the provinces would have to tax land. Well, that does not seem to be an argument for having bad taxation. I must say that I am astonished at members of the cross-benches not saying more about a land tax. A land tax on unimproved values of land seems to be reasonable. In this province of the Cape, we have two land taxes, which the other provinces do not have. You have one tax levied by the divisional council, and one by the provincial council. It brings in a considerable sum of money and, therefore, I do not think that the land tax should be ruled off the slate altogether. More particularly a tax on the unimproved value of land. I should like to say one thing about town-planning and in support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). The provisions of the Bill in that respect are excellent but I think the rights of the public authorities should be carefully restricted. The Bill, as it reads to-day, commits anyone laying out a small estate open to very large demands from public authorities of all kinds for police stations, post offices, railways, schools—

Asylums!

Yes; and a hundred other services. It would be very unfair, because those services would probably be used not only for the land which was being developed, but adjoining land, and therefore, it would not be fair to mulct one owner in this large and unnecessary expense. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance has thought fit to leave the importers’ licences to the provinces. I think he has done one thing which we have asked for years and which is most satisfactory. He has at last decided that the Union Parliament is going to lay down a schedule of licences and that is going to be uniform throughout the Union. That is a very good principle and one for which we have fought for many years, and I should like to have seen him extend that and make that uniformity extend to importers licences as well as the others. Even if he decided to hand that licence back to the provincial authorities, who would get it under the present system which he suggests; but once and for all he should make the licences uniform throughout all the provinces, and take the power of deciding on the amounts of those licences away from the provincial councils. There is one clause in the Bill which I cannot say a good word for. That is Clause 5 which relates to the provision of loans to provide monies for provincial requisite stores. The matter has not been very much discussed during the last two days, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) mentioned it. I do not think sufficient weight has been given to the objections to this clause.

Perhaps it had better be discussed in Committee.

I am discussing the principle of allowing them to have the requisite stores at all.

It is only giving them a loan. They won’t ask me for the right to have a requisite store.

Many people go wrong if they get the money, but if they don’t get the money they keep straight. That is the argument I am trying to urge. A quarter of a million sterling will be required to provide these people with the necessary capital to run stores. I quite agree, that if you could make out a clear case that there would be a saving to the country by having these stores, I should say “Go ahead, and do it.” But the whole evidence is against there being any saving whatever; but gross extravagance, and the people who run it have not the experience or knowledge to make a financial success of it. There is another method and that is to put the orders out to tender. The advantages of this over the store system are that you know what the goods cost you; there is no risk of depreciation so far as the country is concerned; the very great expense of supervision is saved, and, finally, the contractor supplies you with capital and thus avoids the country having to lock up £250,000 in a remarkably unsound investment. One of the principal firms of accountants in this city who enquired into the provincial stores accounts reported—

This is the opinion of one of the shrewdest firms of accountants in South Africa. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has seen this report, but if not I hope he will make a point of reading it before finally going on with this Clause. There was one particular point brought out, and that was there were roughly £100,000 of stock for which no depreciation was shown. In discussing the matter on August 21st last the Administrator said—

If you look at the accounts to March 31, 1924, and for nine months to December 31, 1924, that is for twenty-one months they suddenly found, after it had been suggested that there must be depreciation, that the accounts to the 31st March, 1924, show a depreciation of £3,589, and for the nine following months, of £814, that is a total of £4,400 on these accounts, which had been lost sight of in dealing with the accounts in previous times. On this one item 4½ per cent. was lost, which was not shown until explained to them that there must be a depreciation, and I assure the hon. Minister of Finance that there is a great deal more depreciation to come. That is what their figures themselves have disclosed. If you take the figures they are the most extraordinary set of figures that have ever been placed before an intelligent body of people who pretend to have any knowledge of ordinary trade. For instance, they received goods back for the twelve months of £851, and for the nine following months of £275, a total £1,126. They did not know from whence they came. That is an extraordinary position. Then, having received these goods back, they put them to the credit of their profit and loss account. Any business men doing that would have a chance of getting into the hands of the law. The goods belonged to somebody else and not to them at all. I don’t know whether any officials of the treasury have looked through the accounts of the Provincial Council of the Cape up to the 31st March, 1924, but all through the accounts are different items charged which are legitimate debits against the costs of running this store. Such items as the cost of the inspector’s visit to England, to look after the purchasers, overtime for inspectors for examining these stores, packing charges, etc., amounting to £1,400.

I do not think that the hon. member is now discussing the principles of the Bill.

What I wanted to impress on the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, is that it is absolutely fatal to help these people in any way to finance these stores.

I take it that the argument of the hon. member is based on Clause 5 of the Bill. He will be able to discuss Clause 5 fully in committee. This is not the time to go into the details as he has been doing in the last ten minutes. The second reading must be confined to the principles of the Bill.

Then I will not go into any more details. The conclusions I have come to are that last year, and the nine subsequent months to December 31 last, instead of showing any profit in these stores there was a loss. From these figures they have in their own account and including interest on capital, there is a loss of £7,600. That is a great deal more than any saving they would have made. Now, I find from the report of the provincial council, that they are sending one member of the executive over to Europe to purchase stores. I should first of all like to point out to the Minister of Finance that he has just brought in a tariff Bill protecting certain industries, the printing industry and so on. These people are going overseas to purchase stuff, and thereby will get their stuff in duty free, and compete with the merchants here, who have to purchase their goods from the local manufacturer. They are choosing for this purpose an attorney to go to England to buy—

I am afraid the hon. member (Mr. Stuttaford) is wandering far afield now.

If, Mr. Speaker, you would rather I dealt with this matter when we get into committee, I would simply say that, far from any saving having been proved, it has been a very great expense to the country, and without any compensating advantages, and I think it should be made clear to these provincial councils that they should go back to the ordinary system of calling for tenders for their supplies, and getting their supplies at the cheapest price they can from the traders in this country.

It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House, but many bouquets have been thrown at the Minister of Finance, and I am certain that the House will join with me in expressing our appreciation of the courteous and attentive way in which he has listened to the many speeches which have been delivered on this Bill. There are a few matters that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and these matters are rather directed to the position in connection with Natal, because I believe that this Bill, if brought into legislation, will affect Natal more than any of the other provinces. Firstly, it is going to strike a blow at the financial arrangements of the municipalities and councils. As far back as 1912, when the Financial Relations Commission sat, this question of the rights enjoyed by the Natal municipalities was considered, and the report of that commission laid down that the rights which the municipalities had should not be taken away, or, if taken away, some compensation should be allowed to the municipalities. Even as late as December, 1924, the Natal Consolidated Municipal Bill was passed and assented to by the Governor-General-in-Council. In that enactment the rights of the municipalities were clearly recognized as far as these licences were concerned, and, not only were the rights clearly defined and reaffirmed, but a list was set out in a schedule to this Act of all the licences, with the maximum amount, that the local authorities were entitled to receive, and to exact from the various trades and occupations. Now this Bill, so far as the licences are concerned, must have been approved of by the Minister from the financial side. The direct effect of taking away these licences is going to be disastrous, so far as the municipalities in Natal are concerned. Mr. Speaker, so far as your own town of Vryheid is concerned, if this legislation is passed, according to information which has been supplied, it will immediately have to impose ½d. in the £ in rates, and in the other municipalities and townships the amount of the rates in some instances will have to be increased up to ¾d. in the £. Only last year two small villages in Natal formed themselves into townships, and were induced to form themselves into townships, on the promise which was made by the Natal provincial administration, in writing, that they would be entitled to and be secured in these revenues. Now, these people changed their position on that assurance, but within nine months or a year from the time they changed, they are now going to have their licences taken away from them with the inevitable result that they will immediately have to raise taxes on the residents. But apart from that, the second point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is that the very people in these townships and municipalities who are going to have these licences taken away will have to pay an increased licence to carry on these businesses. They will first have to pay an extra amount in rates to make up the loss of the licences taken away and then they will have to pay an extra amount under the Union Consolidated Licence Act, so that they will have to pay both ways. In some cases the licences will actually be increased by 300 per cent., and all these taxes will fall on the same people. Then the third point is that these same taxpayers will probably have to pay increased licences through the legislation which the provincial council is empowered to impose under Clause 13 of this Bill. The Administration is given power to increase these licences. Then these same unfortunate people will also have to pay a further tax, because, as stated by the Minister, the Natal Province this year will be £39,000 to £40,000 short of their estimates, so they will have to exact further taxation if they are to meet their estimates. That taxation will probably fall upon the same people, so they are actually going to have no less than an increase in four directions of taxation.

That just shows how comparatively well off they have been all the time.

I submit that so far as Natal is concerned we are paying heavier taxes per capita of the population than any other part of the Union.

That shows how prosperous you are.

But we are contributing more to the revenue of the Union per capita than any other part. We have not called upon the treasury to grant us loans to make up deficits. Another point is that the cost of living in these townships and municipalities is bound to go up. I believe it is the desire of every member of this House to bring down the cost of living as much as possible. The small men will have to pay a pro rata share of the extra taxes which will be imposed if this measure goes through in its present form. I feel confident that hon. members opposite, and even the Minister of Finance if he represented a Natal constituency would take up exactly the same attitude and would argue in exactly the same way, probably much better than I can, with regard to the objections to the Bill in its present form. I appeal to the hon. members opposite to show us a little practical sympathy on this point: If this legislation goes through, it is going to mean that the municipalities are going to suffer heavily. They have derived these revenues from the people of Natal, who gave them these revenues originally, and the greater part of their financial arrangements have been based on these revenues. To take these away without giving the municipalities an opportunity to make representations is, I think, a very hard way of hitting at them. I submit that the proper method is to leave this matter to Natal to settle for itself; to leave the provincial council to settle it with the municipalities; and not to ask hon. members who represent Free State, Transvaal and Cape constituencies to vote and take away a right which the people of Natal gave to the municipalities as far back as 1852. I do not think this House should take upon itself the responsibility of taking away these rights.

You want to be in the Union for one thing and out for another.

No, I say you are taking away these licences and handing them over to the provincial council; whereas you should let the provincial council settle the question, as it is purely a domestic matter.

They have asked for it.

Let them legislate. They have power under the Act of Union to legislate in so far as the municipalities are concerned, and it is their duty. Let the onus be upon them to pass that legislation, instead of jockeying the Minister into passing legislation here which they should pass. With all due deference, if this matter were submitted to the people of Natal, I say, without fear of contradiction, that you would find the people of Natal would not agree to these rights being taken away from them.

Let the provincial council return the money to them.

Apparently the hon. member has not appreciated the fact that when once the provincial council octopus gets its tentacles on this money it will never part with it.

I thought you had popular government in Natal.

We have; but why not let that popular government decide itself? It is quite evident that the provincial council is afraid to take away the right themselves and that is why they have asked the Minister and this House to pass the legislation. I submit that to use this House as a catspaw, to carry out what they are afraid to do themselves, should not be allowed.

The hon. member must not suggest that this House is used as a catspaw.

I submit that the Minister should not be used as a catspaw. I hope the few words I have said will have fallen on good ground, and that the Minister will consider the position that I have put before him. I am only asking for justice for these people. I now wish to direct a few remarks to the first schedule, in which the provincial councils are given the power to impose a land tax. Personally, I am against any land tax. Are hon. members opposite in favour of the land tax? (Cries of “no” and “yes.”) Judging from the interjections some of the members opposite are in favour of such a tax. I believe that if a land tax is put into operation in Natal the people there will say “Down with the provincial councils.” Hon. members opposite don’t appreciate what a gamble farming is, or that it is possible for a farmer to spend £500 in fertilizers, and to have the whole of his crop destroyed by a hail storm in one afternoon. The unfortunate farmer will then be in the position of not only losing the money he has spent in fertilizers, and his crops, but of still having to pay his land tax. Where would the money come from? A land tax is a most unfair form of taxation, as it is a tax on capital, which is unsound. The next power which I think the Minister should expunge from the schedule is the employers tax. The farmers in Natal don’t want an employers tax, and I don’t think the farmers in the other provinces want it. It would be most disastrous to impose such a tax on the farming population. Many farmers in Natal employ from 40 to 60 persons, and it would impose a very heavy burden on them if they had to pay a tax on their employees. If ever Natal becomes an industrial part of the Union, I foresee very great dangers if we give the provincial administration power to impose these two taxes. I would like to tell my hon. friends opposite that, in my opinion, within five years, they will find the provincial councils, not only in Natal, but in the Cape Province and the Free State, will impose this taxation. The farmers are going to have to pay from every side. They are going to pay an income tax to the central government, the same tax to the provincial council, a land tax, and in addition an employers tax. Can farmers stand all this taxation?

They have the right to do it now.

Take the right away. The sooner the better so far as the provincial councils are concerned.

Where must they get their money?

They have other means of getting it. They can have a poll tax, and let them have an amusement tax too. They can impose taxes on luxuries. I have a motor-car in Natal, and we are paying a far bigger licence than in any other province in the Union. I don’t complain at the extra amount I am paying for my motor-car, because it is a luxury, and there are many other forms of taxation which might be considered. I am sorry I have not more influence, but I appeal in all sincerity to the Minister not to take away, through this legislation, the rights of the municipalities to these licences, but to allow the provincial councils to adjust this matter in Natal.

On the motion of Mr. Nicholls the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.