As I understand that several members want to take part in the discussion, I will move—

Agreed to.

The debate during the last few days on this measure is one of the most interesting and most instructive debates we have ever had on the financial relations question. It has been remarkable because there has been an absence of partizanship in most of the speeches that have been made. The debate has also revealed an independence of opinion which reflects the opinion that is generally held in different quarters throughout the whole of the country. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) in his remarks said the Government were looking for that massed attack which the Opposition were going to launch upon them. Probably he was reminded of the massed attack which he helped to launch against the Government last year when the late Government brought in a measure to endeavour to deal with this intricate and troublesome question. He could not have paid a greater compliment to the Opposition in saying that the expected attack had not been forthcoming, because our criticism of the Bill had not been brought forward in the party spirit. The present Opposition is constructive in its criticism, not destructive. It will be remembered that the hon. member at that time took part in an attack upon the Government because it was trying to bring about uniformity in teachers’ salaries. He is quite in favour of the Minister of Finance bringing about uniformity in licences, however. A great feature of the attack on the Government last year was that the Government were not putting into operation the Baxter report, which the Opposition themselves had repudiated—a criticism which was certainly not constructive. Personally I am very glad to see that the level of this debate has been kept above that of last year. So far as I can see from the speeches that have been made, there are three main currents of opinion in this matter. There are those who stand for the abolition of the provincial councils; to a large extent these people consist of financial purists who are not much influenced by political considerations. Some are so influenced but the majority are not. There is another school almost entirely influenced by political considerations, and they desire that the powers of the provincial councils should be extended. They are federalists pure and simple. There is a third and very large section which waits to see which way the cat is going to jump and they sit on the fence. Among them is the Minister of Finance; admittedly he is sitting on the fence; he says so himself. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in his speech yesterday gave us more undiluted wisdom in twenty minutes than he has probably ever given before in all the years he has been in the House. I am sorry, however, that in that speech he could not refrain from having a little dab at Natal. It has become the custom among certain hon. members, because Natal members take an opposite view on many important questions of policy, to speak as if Natal were something quite adrift, something cut off from the rest of the Union. Let me say that Natal, as I conceive it, has a finer sense of the African spirit than most other parts of South Africa. For this reason, that the people of Natal live in the heart of a large native population; they are up against the fundamental problems of this country which they meet every day of thier lives. They see the Asiasic population competing with the European population for the soul of Africa. And they know that the struggle going on in Natal is an all African struggle. So if they see policies in South Africa in a somewhat different light from people who are chiefly influenced by a party point of view, do not think they are taking a narrow view of matters. They are taking a broad view. The view presented to them in the face of the great problems that they have to meet. The all African problem exists in Natal. When the first great trek was made from the Cape the first time the trekkers came to death grips with the real African was in Natal. As it was in the past so it will be in the future. Those traditions are very dear to us, but we do not dwell in the past. Some people live in the past; others are making history. Natal is trying to make history for itself. I would say this also, that the future of our children in this country will not depend upon what the Government does in Johannesburg or in Cape Town or in Bloemfontein. It will depend upon how the Government is going to act towards the population over the Drakensberg. I am not here speaking of the white population, but that large bulk of non-European on the East Coast. As the Government acts towards the population of the East Coast so the whole future of the country will shape itself. As I conceive it, the provincial councils were a compromise between the fear of certain people at the National Convention and the hope of others. The fear of unification on one hand and federation on the other that might lead to the destruction of the national unity that all were looking for. There was the hope of others that by giving some measure of local government to the then existing states they would ultimately become merged in the great union which all were looking for. That was the principle aimed at union. You cannot create a living organism or institution of this nature without its either growing or dying; it cannot stand still. As long as the provincial councils exist they are going to grow or else fade out of existence. If they grow they can only grow in one direction, that is, towards greater power which will eventually come to grips with the Union Government and dispute whatever interference the Government may seek to make with the affairs of the provinces.

That applies to every little form of local self-government.

No. I will explain to the hon. member why it does not. It is an extraordinary thing, but unfortunately true, that where the provincial councils has done least damage, and where the people find least fault with them, is in Natal and the Free State. Why? Because the people of Natal are largely of one political complexion, and it is the same in the Free State. But when you bring two conflicting political parties into being in any legislative body there is bound to be political struggles out of which arises a determination to get as much power for that body as possible. Our provincial councils are a standing example of this. From the Transvaal all the members come to this House preaching federation, because of the party domination in the provincial council of the Transvaal. And Cape members are quarrelling in the House over the retention or abolition of the Cape Provincial Council. That is the inevitable result of the growth of provincial councils. Many of the members of the provincial council gravitate into this House, they bring with them the echoes of their provincial struggles, and they gravitate more and more towards federalism. (Where will that lead us? What has been the result of federalism in Australia? We know the state of Australia are growing much further and further apart than they were 20 years ago. We know Queensland is a country entirely on its own, cut off from New South Wales. The domestic policies of the states are shaped from different aims and for different purposes. If that is so in a country with a homogeneous population like Australia, what will it be with our mixed population, which is in different stages of development, and governed by different ideas and different laws. The whole argument for centralization in a country like this is that we shall have a one-single policy in regard to our large subject population, and if we are going to make our path clear towards the federal system, we should face what such a great departure involves. Federalism will certainly not help us to face our future problems with greater safety. Holding such opinions, I think the Government had a magnificent opportunity, which it has lost, and, instead of facing this question, it has given no indication of what is in its mind; and has adopted a colourless attitude. The Minister has said—

That is his confession. He might have done something. He has done nothing. I think the time has arrived, and I said this last year, when the opinion of the country should be sought. The idea of a national convention was spoken of by Mr. Merriman some years ago, and it was also spoken of by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) last year It is an idea that is growing in the country, and I think some opportunity should be taken to test public opinion on this great matter. The Government have chosen the easiest course. They have produced the same article, which we have been producing for years past, only they have painted it a little differently; but when you scratch the paint it is the same old door underneath. The Minister has told us he has given the provincial councils a new lease of life. That in itself is a confession that there is no intention to prolong them indefinitely. If the Minister had been in earnest there were two plans the Government could have adopted, either of which would have carried this matter further. They might have said: “We are afraid of federalism; so we are going to take the first step necessary to curb the powers of the provincial councils, and restrict their taxation powers on the public.” They might have said: “We will provide all the subsidy, but we will control it. You shall submit your budget to us and we will control you” in the same way as the Chartered Company controlled the finances of Rhodesia. That would have given the Government that measure of control which all our financial pundits say is so necessary. As an alternative, they might have said, “Let the people decide. We will give the provincial councils full power to tax and give no subsidy.” Let them put their taxes on the people and let the people decide whether they want the provincial councils or not. These are two fundamental departures which the Government might have adopted, and which would have taken us a little farther one way or the other. They did nothing, however, but sit on the fence. They have brought forward a measure that slightly alters the basis of the subsidy, without in any way changing the principle of providing a subsidy which everyone has been quarrelling about for years. It neither controls the provincial councils, nor does it allow the public to control them. They get a new subsidy, on a new basis, without stirring up too much trouble among their own people. To show how far the limitation of taxation proposed is of any use, just consider Clause 8. If the provincial councils have any deficit at all, they may come to the Government and get a loan to meet the deficit. It is the same old thing. The provincial councils may go on spending money, and when they get into trouble they get a loan to tide them over, and finally the loan accumulates until the Union has to come to the rescue with a new measure. The Minister made several extraordinary statements in his speech, which are rather contradictory. He said that the provincial councils did not function largely because there were no proper financial relations in the past, and he said that as a consequence of this, education had been neglected, the proper amount of road building had not been done, and the hospitals had been badly treated. Is not that an extraordinary statement, in view of the deficit of two millions? These services are not being properly performed. The country has not gone ahead as it should; and yet we have the statement by the Minister that he does not think the Union Government could carry them out cheaper. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) tells us there has been no waste whatsoever in the provincial councils. What does the Minister infer by his statement? That the country has not been sufficiently taxed to provide for the services of the provincial councils? If that is so; if sufficient funds have not been found to carry out all the work which the provincial councils should have done in the past, what becomes of this cry that the Government of the past has been extravagant? The whole charge now is that sufficient money has been spent on these services. Now, let us take the basis of subsidy. This paint which we put on the old door has not altered the complexion of things at all. This idea comes from the report of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Section 482 of the report of the Provincial Finances Commission reads as follows—

So they recommend that the subsidy, should then be based on the average attendance of children in school. The figure upon which this was based was arbitrarily arrived at, a figure which I, in common with the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth), dispute. Why is the attendance of children at school considered to be a national service, while other works which the provincial councils carry out are not considered national? What would happen to the children if there were no roads to feed the railways over which the farmers could send their produce to market. Would the children go to school? It seems the height of folly to say that to construct roads to develop the country is not a national service, and that other works are, We come to this extraordinary position, that a country—which by its physical characteristics, needs roads and bridges more than a flat country—suffers because it has not as many children going to school as a flat country like the Free State. The position becomes perfectly absurd, if looked at from that point of view. The first report of the Financial Relations Commission dated 1912 contained a memorandum by Mr. Justice Lawrence, who points out—

Here is Natal, situated on the spurs of the Drakensberg, deeply fissured and ravined, needing roads in order that its produce may be taken to market, roads which it is not necessary to be built at all in the Free State. Is it not a national service that roads should be constructed to enable the people to get their goods to market—is it not a national service that wealth should be produced and communications established? I fail to see the reason why the basis of subsidy should be fixed simply on the number of children attending school, and being absolutely oblivious to other factors in the production of wealth. Surely our fisheries are a national matter, and yet the only money you can spend on them is that which you have left after defraying the cost of education. The people of Natal send a larger proportion of their children to private schools than any other province, and it is penalized for that, as the Treasury says to Natal—

Is not such reasoning absurd? The Minister asks why Natal should be treated differently regarding licence revenue going to the provincial council. There is just this reason, that most of the towns in Natal need to spend much more on roads than do towns in any other part of the Union. Then other circumstances, such as race, and the number of the native inhabitants, have to be taken into consideration. When one remembers that 25 per cent. of the roads in Natal pass through native areas, and these roads have to be maintained by the provincial council, one recognizes what a big factor the maintenance of roads is in Natal. The Minister interjected several times during the debate, when it was pointed out that Natal was paying a higher percentage than the other provinces were, that this was because Natal was more prosperous, and therefore could aflord to pay. That is perfectly true, but Natal’s prosperity depends on the ability of her people to work. I cannot conceive that because people produce more wealth they should get less subsidy With regard to the taxes which the Minister seeks to impose, I maintain that all taxes, eventually, fall on food. Whether you raise money by a poll tax or in other ways, eventually the whole of the people have to pay, and usually the taxation falls ultimately on the poorest part of the population. The poll tax is one of the crudest forms of taxation it is possible to devise for civilized people. Take the Minister’s other tax—the tax on insurance premiums. We have two large insurance companies in South Africa which pay no profits—the profits going to the policyholders. The latter pay their premiums in order to insure themselves, so as to make provision for old age, or to provide for their families in case of death, but the Government comes along and taxes their thrift. That is a thing with which I could not agree. I would like to say, in conclusion, that I understand that the Minister is agreeable, provided the Natal Provincial Council concur, to withdraw section 12 of the Bill. I am very sorry the Minister allowed himself to be used in this matter by the Natal Provincial Council, because it is very clear to me that they were so overcome with his charm down there, that they lost their heads, and agreed to the Minister’s proposal. The Natal Provincial Executive is now being communicated with, and asked to agree to the withdrawal of the proposal to transfer licences moneys from the municipality.

They have already replied that they won’t agree.

I say then, why should the Minister penalize the municipalities at the request of the Natal Provincial Executive—why does he want to pull the chestnuts out of the fire?

I am not going to.

If the Natal Provincial Council likes to incur the odium by all means let it do so. Why should the Minister incur the odium? We don’t want him to incur odium in that way; we want his ability as a Minister to spread far afield.

This has been a long and interesting debate and a number of important points has been raised in the course of it, to some of which I would like to refer for a few moments. Let me first refer to the speech of the Minister. It was an admirable speech and up to the high standard which we expect from him. I was sorry that admirable speech should have been marred by an unnecessary number of jibes at his predecessors. He referred to the tinkering, the ineffective tinkering, which had taken place in previous years.

I said tinkering with the subsidy.

The fact is this, that much of this tinkering which has taken place in recent years has been adopted by the Minister. Much of the matter has been quietly assimilated by the Government and adopted in this Bill. We remember in previous years how the limitations we found it necessary to impose on the taxing powers of provincial councils were resented here by the Opposition. We spent half a session in debating that matter. On another occasion the liberation of the mines from the clutches of the provincial taxes in the Transvaal occupied another half session. We heard that the then Government was simply carrying out the policy of the mining magnates. Now, what do we find? This tinkering, this pandering to the mines, quietly adopted by the Government, and I find the Government has gone further, and used the employers tax also as an opportunity of favouring the mines. The mines are going to be free of this form of taxation. It is a very curious commentary on the debates of previous years and the attacks levelled against us session after session that the Government should now adopt our policy and appropriate this work and almost seem to be proud of it. I don’t think the Minister has the right to speak with disparagement of the work that has gone before. The late Government was responsible for the principal Act, and the Act of 1913 was on the whole a good Act. I was mainly responsible for it and I know a very great deal of time and consideration was given to the framing of the Act. Ten years after, when the Prime Minister attacked us on this tinkering with legislation, I asked him what he wanted, and he said—

After ten years the Act was still looked upon by the Prime Minister as the standard to go by. I believe that Act was good. There is still a good deal to be said for the £ for £ principle which it embodied and that principle would have worked but for mistakes subsequently made. The root of the trouble was the departure made during the war when the rate of increase for development was raised to 15 per cent. That was the great mistake. Parliament opened the flood-gates to provincial extravagance and the flood poured through, and the result was after the passing of the Act in 1917 or 1918 the provincial expenditure went up by leaps and bounds and we were faced with a situation that compelled us to deal drastically with the matter. We made one attempt after another to stop the process which had set in through that amendment, but we failed, and we had all the unpleasantness in Parliament and commotions in the country, I am afraid my hon. friend is once more opening the floodgates by his Bill. It is once more going to lead to extravagance on the part of the provincial councils, and it will not be many years before he will be in the same position in which the late Government found itself. He will try to retrace his steps, but it will be one of the most difficult steps to take. In regard to the principal point raised in the debate the future of the provincial councils, I don’t believe that the provincial system was a fundamental part of the South Africa Act. I don’t think it was so conceived by those who took part in the National Convention, and the character of the arrangements made in the South Africa Act make it clear that the step was not final. The financial part of the provincial arrangement which was most important and difficult was not made at all, it was left over to be dealt with by Parliament at some subsequent date. We may take it the provincial system, as embodied in the South Africa Act, was an experiment and was looked upon as an experiment to be justified by the course of events. I am not one of those who say the time has come to abolish provincial councils; far from it. Bur I cannot hide from myself the fact that public opinion in South Africa is steadily moving against provincial councils. I think the Minister struck a warning note, to be heeded by the provincial councils, that the sands are running out and it may be, if this feeling which is gathering in the country increases much further, that you will find such a volume of opinion in South Africa that it will be impossible for Parliament to withstand it. I speak without any prejudice whatever against the provincial system. To some extent I was partly responsible for it. The system as embodied in the South Africa Act was largely the work of Mr. Merriman and myself, but we looked upon it as an experiment to be resorted to in order to satisfy the feelings of the two small provinces. Our idea was different from what has eventuated. Our idea was that the provincial councils should be entrusted with a number of important functions, essentially of a non-party character. The basic idea we had was that party politics would not become a prominent idea of the provincial system, and in the system embodied in the Smith Africa Act the Swiss model was followed. We adopted proportional representation for the election of the executive committee, and followed largely the system working in Switzerland to-day without the introduction of party politics. On the contrary we have found that in some of the provinces the provincial councils have become centres of the most intense partisanship and the most intense political feeling, and I am very much afraid that that extreme party feeling has largely marred and spoilt the chance of good work on the part of the provincial councils. One of the most important functions of the councils was to take part in the elections of members of the Senate. They were to co-operate with members of this House in the election of members to the Senate. In that connection we need not go far to see the lengths to which partisan feeling has gone or may go. We have recently seen an exhibition of party feeling in this connection which has shocked the country. I think I do not go too far when I say that every sense of public decency has been outraged by what has happened. The public conscience of South Africa has been profoundly disturbed by what has happened and I think seldom has an incident so deeply troubled this country. We pride ourselves on the fact—and I think it is a fact—that our politics are clean in this country, but there has been a revelation of the political nether world by recents events which has brought us all to shame, and we can only feel humiliated, and not one party only, but all parties, the whole public life of this country has been humiliated, deeply humiliated, by what has happened. The incident to which I am referring only shows how difficult it has been to keep the provincial system away from party politics. The provisions of the South Africa Act have been so interlocked through these provisions in regard to the election of the Senate, the provincial council with the party system in South Africa, that it is almost impossible for these councils to follow a non-party course. May I refer to another difficulty? I do not say we made a mistake, but what we did was this, we entrusted in the South Africa Act to the provincial council probably the most difficult and most important national issue in South Africa, that is education. I think I may safely say it is the most important issue in South Africa. We did not keep it for Parliament; we entrusted that to a subordinate body. My feeling is this, I say it with all frankness, to my mind the provincial councils have not proved equal to the task. It so happens under the system as it has evolved in South Africa since Union that all the most important leaders of public opinion come to Parliament. The men who mould opinion come to Parliament. The real leadership of South Africa is vested in Parliament. Public opinion is centred on Parliament. Provincial councils are by public opinion not looked upon as of very much account and the result has been this, that while you have the real leadership of South Africa centred in Parliament, the most important issue of all upon which the future of the country depends has been committed to another body, a subordinate body. Naturally, under these circumstances, very great difficulties will arise. We have had to take away from the provincial councils time and time again work which was entrusted to them. Now, when we see technical education coming to the fore as a matter of primary importance, of far-reaching importance for the future of this country, that has been taken away, too. I think that we will all admit that it is a very grave reflection on the provincial councils that this step had to be taken, and the question will now arise, if the provincial councils are not competent to deal with technical instruction in the country, what competence have they to guide the rest of the national education in this country? I am very much afraid that the situation as it has developed since the South Africa Act has made the arrangement under the South Africa Act work with very great difficulty. It is not only that the provincial councils are dealing with a matter of the greatest importance, but I am afraid that their exclusive attention to education again has made them neglect the other functions entrusted to them. They have not been strong enough to dispose wisely of education, and their attempt to do so has made it impossible for them to be just to the other services which are entrusted to them. Take the matter of roads. The road system, the road transport system of this country, is entrusted to the provincial councils. I think it is really a scandal to see the state in which our roads are in South Africa.

Do you say they spend too much?

No. The roads of South Africa are a disgrace to us as a civilized state, there is no doubt about it, and I think if there is one thing for which I would bless the Government it is that part of that surplus which has survived from less prosperous times is going to be devoted now to the building of new roads in this country. I think that is a very wise and statesmanlike action for the Government to have taken. There is no better index of the civilization that a country has reached than roads and let me say this, the way the provincial councils have handled the whole road system of this country is a very grave reflection on their administration.

Not in the Cape.

Of course, the situation in the Cape is not so difficult as in other provinces. You may go to the Transvaal, you may go to Natal, and you may go to the Free State, in fact I think some of the worst roads in this country are to be found in the Free State. I do not know why this should be so. I would have thought that councils which consist largely of farmers would see that the roads are kept in good repair. There has been a great deal of money spent, but somehow the money has been wrongly spent and the whole system has worked inefficiently. Then take hospitals. I think our hospitals are very largely a disgrace, too, to the provincial administrations. The central hospitals in this province are badly staffed, and you see big buildings going up in small centres where they are not wanted on such a scale. The big central hospitals are starved and neglected, and are not a credit to the provinces. My feeling is that the provincial system has not worked well. The great major service which was entrusted to them they have not done efficiently, and the minor services they have starved and neglected to an extent which is not a credit to this country. Let me turn to the provisions of this Bill, and I would say at once that the Bill is a step in the right direction. I admit that it does not go far enough, and I am very much afraid that the financial provisions which the Minister has made will lead to a fresh outburst of extravagance and will have the result of placing him and his Government in the same hole in which we were for a number of years. Let me for a moment look at the figures. Let me take what is happening and let me take as an illustration this province. The provincial budget of the Cape Province ended last year with a deficit of £200,000. The Minister gives to the Cape an additional grant of something over £500,000. I think £530,000. He has not been content to cover that deficit by a new grant, but has given very much more. All this additional grant is going to be spent this first year. The provincial administration is budgeting for this full increase.

What about the children not in the schools?

I will come to that later on. My argument now is this, that the large grant with which the provinces are started is simply going to lead to the same state of affairs that we had to face before. Here, in this province, you have it proved. Their deficit is £200,000, the Minister is giving them more than double that amount by way of additional subsidy, but it is all going to be spent. Not a penny is reserved for a subject which must be very much troubling the Minister of the Interior. He has appointed a hospital commission to go into the question of hospitals.

They are surrendering some revenue against the additional grant.

Yes, the turnover tax.

And the companies tax.

The Minister knows that a good deal of that will be covered by the new licences which he has imposed. Here you have a case where a very large additional grant is given, and it is all spent this year. What is going to happen next year? In this province we hear the word “expansion” every year. Where is that expansion going to come from next year? There is an increase above the deficit of last year of £330,000. Where is that increase in future to come from, except through additional taxation? Let us take the provinces as a whole. The total deficit of the provinces for last year amounted to £330,000. I take the Minister’s own figures. The additional grant over and above what would have been given under existing legislation is £823,000. The Minister has taken away the charge for technical instruction from the provinces, which is a service amounting to about £160,000 expenditure. I think we may take it, roundly, that the Minister has given an additional grant to the provinces as a whole of £1,000,000. Their deficit is £330,000, but he has given three times that amount to the provinces by way of additional grant. I am sure all this is going to be spent; all this lavish additional grant in one year is going to be spent. The result will be from this huge additional start which the provinces get, that provincial expenditure is going to leap up to an equal extent, and thus, next year, when expansion takes place in the ordinary course, taxation will have to take place. An hon. member has said that education has been at a standstill for three years. I do not wish us to get on to false lines in this argument, so far as it refers to education. There is no doubt that the Baxter report reveals a situation which requires the close and serious attention of this House and the country. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) said that some of these figures can be called into question. That is probably true; in detail you can probably question this or that figure, but here you have the figures covering the total in the various provinces, and where you deal with total figures any small mistakes naturally cancel themselves. You come to this broad result from these figures in appendix B. Education, per child, costs in South Africa almost double what it costs in other countries. You can take other dominions which are not very differently situated from ourselves. They are new countries, with vast spaces, and sparse population. You find everywhere that the educational system is run so much more cheaply that the cost, per child, is in South Africa. That is the one outstanding result of examination of these figures. There can be no mistake about it; any small percentage errors would naturally cancel themselves out. If we come to South Africa we find that in less than ten years’ time the increase per child in the Union has been enormous. In less than ten years the cost of education per child in Natal and in the Transvaal has practically doubled. In Natal it is even more; it is one and a half times as much as in 1913. In the Cape it has not increased so much; the increase is at the rate of 64 per cent.; but here you have altogether very striking results that show, whether we compare our state of affairs with other countries similarly situated, or we compare them with our own conditions less than ten years ago, we find this enormous increase. The Minister says my argument means that education must be starved. That cannot be said against me; I have been an enthusiast for education in this country. Not so many years ago, when I was Minister in the Transvaal responsible for education I found the state of education certainly the most backward in South Africa, but to-day the Transvaal compares very favourably with other provinces. That was largely the result of the work I began after self government. It is not a question of starving education but a question of efficient administration, of so arranging our financial system in regard to education that extravagance is prevented and we make the best of our resources. This is a country which requires education and in which the white standard naturally involves an expensive system of education; but my argument is this, we are not a country with unlimited resources, and unless we are careful we may find that through extravagance and inefficient administration our educational system is in danger of becoming a heavier burden than this country can bear. I would remind the Minister of the Interior that he has undertaken a burden, in regard to technical education, which is going to prove very heavy indeed. This country clamoured for technical education, and he will find in the years to come that he will have to switch on to technical education on a very large scale. It is going to be a very expensive service, and he will find on the one side, an expensive general educational system will be run by the provinces, and the Union, simultaneously will be carrying on a parallel system of technical education, and the burden will become more than this country can bear. Therefore, I say that, in my opinion, the Minister has not made the most of his opportunity. He should have used this opportunity to bring home more clearly to the provinces the first and primary duty that rests on them, to economize; to be efficient, and to get the most out of the money he has given them. But I am afraid the lavish way in which he has dealt with them—

In what respect?

By this very large additional grant with which he has started them this year.

Should it be on a different basis?

The Minister should have stuck to the Baxter basis.

This is the Baxter basis.

No. The Minister has departed in a most radical way from the Baxter basis when he adopted the Transvaal basis for the first 30,000 children all through. I think the Minister has gone too far in increasing this grant. If he had stuck to the Baxter report, there would not have been this temptation to the provincial councils to embark on lavish expenditure. I now come to the point which I urged against the Minister in the budget debate, and that is that we are going to have double taxation on a scale unknown before. The Minister has said that he has limited the provincial income tax to a 20 per cent. increase on the Union basis, and to that extent he says he has done good service by limiting the taxation capacity of the provinces. But he has started the provinces now on a career of expenditure which will mean that this source of taxation will be exploited to the utmost, and it will not be many years before the provinces will be having this additional 20 per cent. on the income tax, and the company’s tax. In the Transvaal they have come up to 15 per cent. already.

How would you prevent it? What would you substitute?

This should not have been given them. I am against this double taxation. I think the Minister made quite justifiable attempts in other respects to prevent double taxation. In regard to the mines and natives, he maintained that course which we adopted, but here he has left the door open, and I say he has invited the provinces. He has said: Here you are, up to 20 per cent., and the provinces will move up to that pretty soon. I am afraid the Minister has not made the best use of his opportunity; he has not only left an opening, but an invitation which they will only be too willing to make use of. I think this 20 per cent. tax is going to be a very grave evil, and I am very much afraid that, when we have reached that limit, there will be a clamour for more.

Where would you get a fairer tax?

My time is too limited to argue on the merits of the income tax. Some of my hon. friends think that the income tax is fairer than any other; but I am against the principle of double taxation; of two bodies dipping into the same resources, and of the evils that will result from that course. Let me say a word about another tax which the Minister has imposed now. He has extended the Transvaal employers’ tax to the rest of South Africa. I was amazed to find that he had done that.

It is not an extension.

Here it is. He is now inviting them. My trouble with the Minister is that his schedule is a pointer to the provinces, which they must now resort to.

The Baxter report did that.

I hope the hon. member will not adopt the employers’ tax when he comes into his own. It is a tax on industry and development. From the point of view of civilization and progress, nothing worse can be conceived than this tax. My hon. friend has actually had to limit it even in regard to the odious mines of the Transvaal. He has had to limit it for them, but leaves the rest of us under this incubus. I think a very grave mistake has been made here and that is a particular provision in the Minister’s schedule which I do not approve of. Let me say this about a couple of other features of this Bill. I hope the Minister will listen to the people from Natal on that question of taking the municipal licences away from the towns. On several occasions before, his predecessors had to consider this question, and we thought we had better leave it. I advised my hon. friend to leave this matter alone; to leave Natal to deal with this question itself. I do not ask him to give a penny more to Natal. Natal Has been dealt with generously. But leave this question, which under the South Africa Act is an internal one, to Natal to deal with. I hope the request of the Natal people in this connection will be granted. I am sorry my hon. friend has not kept control over the policy of native education in so far as it falls under his grant. The House will remember that in the Act we passed last year we provided that the free native education should come out of a development grant; but we also gave powers to the Central Government to lay down the general lines of policy to be followed in regard to native education. The Central Government has the machinery at its disposal. It has the Native Affairs Commission and the Native Affairs Department; is in the closest touch with native affairs, and is therefore competent to shape the policy. Here they actually supply the funds for education and the Minister will see that in the Bill as it is before us, he limits the control of the State only so far as the teachers’ salaries are concerned. I think he will find the provision we made last year, and which reserves the outlines of general policy to the Government, is better and should have been maintained. And let me say there is another provision which I do not like. We made a great effort to obtain a system of uniform salaries for teachers throughout South Africa. Let us for a moment dismiss from our minds the agitation with which we were faced last year, and let us go back to the appeal which has been made year after year, for a long number of years, by the various teachers’ associations in South Africa, that there should be uniformity of salaries and a measure of security, etc. We, by incurring very grave odium and after prolonged debates in this House, got this on the statute book. Here is a reform which the teachers themselves have demanded for a long number of years. Every teacher’s association has been clamouring for this for years.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. member, but his time has expired. (Cries of “Proceed.”) Is there any objection to the right hon. gentleman proceeding? (Cries of “Agreed.”)

I was practically at the end, sir, and I was saying this, that we, after very grave trouble, and after incurring very grave odium, brought about a reform which was in the real interests of education. This reform is going to be the sheet-anchor of education, but I am very much afraid of what is going to happen in the future. The provinces will not be able to get along on the basis laid down in this Bill, which is not final. The result will be that in different provinces teachers’ salaries will be dealt with on differing bases. You will find one province economizing, and you will have a wild outcry from the teachers. The Government incurs no odium by sticking to what we have already done. I would ask my hon. friend to consider very carefully the situation and whether it is not in the true interests of education and the teachers themselves that what was done last year should remain and should not be altered.

A little while ago an expression fell from the lips of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) by which we understood that if this Bill came before the House we should hear much from the Opposition. Well, I have not yet seen that the opposite side have had much fun. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said some time ago that the provincial councils had made rings round the Minister of Finance. I think that in this case the fun is on this side of the House. It is amusing to see how the other side of the House differ in this matter. No, rings have been made round them, and even the leader of the Opposition could not get them out of their trouble this afternoon. It was interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton that he is actually the father of the provincial councils, but that his idea was to create non-political bodies. Well, if he thought to attain that, then I must say that he showed very poor political insight. The power was given to the provincial councils to take part in the election of the highest legislative body in the country, and so long as the provincial councils have that say with regard to the election of Senators they will, it goes without saying, be a body that is not free from politics. The speech of the hon. member for Standerton was typical. At one moment he says that he is a supporter of provincial councils, and a moment later he says again that the provincial councils should not have the power, should not exercise the functions that they have to-day. How can we reconcile this? If a body is created to do certain work, then the body must naturally be clothed with the power of carrying out the function. I can quite understand why the provincial councils are so unpopular. It is because they levy taxation. If that was not the case they would not be unpopular. What surprised me still more with regard to the arguments on the opposite side is their attitude with regard to education. The provincial councils are now entrusted with the looking after of education in the country, and that is perhaps the only thing that is consistently extending in the land. There is nothing else that is extending so fast and that from time to time demands so much money as education. The services of public officials do not develop so fast and the standing forces are every year more or less the same. The same applies to almost all the Government departments, but it goes without saying that where the population increases and more children have to go to school, more money is required for education. And then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other members object to the expenditure of the provincial councils and say that they have been very much in default as regards education. They allege that the matter has not been tackled in the right way and that too much money has been spent. I agree that there is much to be said for it that the parents themselves ought to pay a portion of the expense of educating their children. In a certain measure free education undermines the spirit of independence of the people, but in this country—especially where in the north the population had to suffer so many trials during the time of the second war of independence—there was certainly nothing so good for the country as free education. From the time that, e.g., in my district the provincial councils took over education, much progress has been made. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) and other hon. members have said that the basis of education is not yet perfect. In a certain measure I agree with that, but we must not forget what has been attained to in the last 20 years. What a difference between the condition 20 years ago and to-day. In those days a farmer’s son learned Latin from the fourth standard, and from the sixth standard Greek and mathematics, things which never became useful in his life. In this respect the system that we have now is much better, and there are signs that as far as education is concerned we are now more and more also going to develop agricultural interests. I am certain that in the early future great improvement will be brought about in this respect as well. I doubt very much, I go further and say I am convinced of it, that if education had been in the hands of Parliament we should not have made the same progress in elementary education as has been made under the provincial councils. A few days ago we just attained the right to use Afrikaans in this House for official documents and Acts. The provincial councils were three or four years ahead of us. The councils introduced education in the mother tongue on the countryside, and I am certain that if this Parliament had had charge of the matter we should still have been working on the old methods, because then the people of Natal, who are 100 years behindhand in civilization, would have exercised a braking influence. It is now said that education is a national matter, and that therefore it should come under Parliament. Members of Parliament have their hands more than full. We sit nearly six months in the year and we can hardly get through the work which lies before us. Do hon. members see their way of taking upon themselves further the care of education? To be responsible for every school on the countryside and as members to receive all the complaints of the parents and bring them to the notice of the Minister? I think that we can safely leave elementary education in the hands of the provincial councils. I must admit that provincial councils are to-day commencing to become unpopular. Formerly the best men used to be elected as members. The hon. member for Standerton has made a remark in this connection, but the cause was that in former times it was still a novelty, while at present we are all accustomed to the provincial customs. The mistake is that the members of the provincial councils, especially where they represent large constituencies in the Transvaal or the Cane Province, get allowances which do not pay the best class of man to go to the provincial councils, and the result is that many men who are approached to become candidates for the provincial councils refuse. I think that the payment for their services should be increased. The hon. member for Standerton compared the cost of education in South Africa with that in other lands. He was, unfortunately, not here when the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) fully discussed the matter and pointed out clearly that the circumstances in South Africa were so very different that the comparison was not in point. We have here a small population and large distances, and in consequence, a large number of small schools, while it is necessary to pay the teachers large salaries. Therefore, the scale of expenses in our country is higher. And this is not the only department where the expenses are higher than in other countries. The expenses of every man in the Defence force in South Africa is nearly five times as high as in Canada and other countries. Take agricultural education. I wonder whether hon. members are aware of it what the relation is between costs here and in other countries with reference to agricultural students. The cost here per student is about 300 per cent. more than in Australia and Canada. Again, because other circumstances make the expenses here higher. The hon. member for Standertan (Gen. Smuts) said that the hon. Minister of Finance had taken a dangerous step by bringing technical education under the Union Parliament because the country felt its technical education was necessary and that there would be much money required for that education. Yes, the people are waking up and are understanding that good elementary education and technical education are necessary and it cannot be otherwise than that great expense will be caused. The hon. member for Standerton has reproached the Minister of Finance with having kept his hand off the mine tax. Well, we in the Transvaal think that as a province we have the right to a certain proportion of the proceeds of the mining taxation. Our geographical situation gives us that right. The mines draw an enormous part of the poor population of the whole Union to us and we are, therefore, entitled to a certain contribution from the mining taxation. We feel very strongly on this point, but I must give the hon. Minister the credit of bringing about a reduction of the mining taxation while on the other hand granting us the necessary allowances. What the former Government did is also to take away the revenue from the mining taxation from the provincial council and in addition to lower the subsidy. That was a double blow. I want further to ask the Minister something with reference to the employers tax. Under this Bill the employers tax is left on the mines, but it is deducted from the subsidies. But what about the employers tax which is paid by us farmers? Is this also deducted? Why must the mines alone be treated differently? I will close by saying that on the whole we are pleased with the Bill which has been introduced by the Minister. There was a feeling that the Union Parliament intended to smother the provincial councils gradually to death but now the public feel that by this Bill the provincial councils will again be put into the position of doing their work and will have another opportunity of making good. I am not afraid of the provincial councils. The more we can come to normality in the country the less party feeling will prevail in the provincial councils. The bodies will do the work entrusted to them better in the future and they will justify their existence.

The most ardent supporters of this Bill, and there are not many, do not claim nor do they expect it will prove more than a temporary palliative of the unsatisfactory state of the financial relations between the Union and the provinces. There seems to be no guarantee that succeeding sessions of this Parliament will not be very largely occupied with similar legislation to that we are now discussing. Starting from 1913, there have been four following Acts, mostly continuing Acts, and several Commissions. At all events, it is evident we are a long way from seeing the beginning of the end of legislation on this important subject. I think it may be fairly stated that this Act goes very little further towards conclusive legislation on this subject. The Minister himself does not seem to think so, and that view is confirmed by different speakers and by the leader of the Opposition. There has not been a great deal of obstructive criticism on this measure, and as unfortunately there has been still less of constructive suggestion, I would advance a few thoughts and arguments on this aspect of the matter. First, it seems that the difficulties we are landed in at present may be primarily traced to section 71 of the Act of Union. It was the intention of the South Africa Act that provincial councils were definitely not to be party political bodies. The Act did not provide the necessary machinery for their functioning as political bodies on the responsible party system with which we are so well acquainted, but they were allotted duties and responsibilities which were normally non-contentious politically, such as schools, hospitals, licences, roads, and so forth. Unfortunately the machinery provided for enabling provincial councils to carry out their functions proved unworkable and impossible owing to vague financial responsibility. The first mistake was the making of the franchise of the electors of provincial councillors the same as for the constituents of the members of the Assembly. They had precisely the same franchise qualification; but, as if that were not bad enough, the evil was accentuated by making the area identical in the two larger provinces for returning a provincial councillor or a member of the House of Assembly, as the case may be, and in the two smaller provinces they were made to assimilate as nearly as the circumstances permitted. The combination of these two conditions, identical franchise and, as far as possible, similar, if not identical, areas, could only have one result. It inevitably happened that a provincial council election became a party political one, pure and simple. As every M.L.A. candidate knows, the provincial council election has come to be looked upon as a full-dress rehearsal for the next general election or the next by-election for this House, as the case may be. That has initiated and tended to perpetuate the existing state of things. Provincial councillors were elected by voters in areas so identical with those governing the return of party politicians that it was inevitable that they should devote a great deal of time and attention to party politics, not only in the council, but, an even more objectionable result: candidates devoted their attention to the explanation of party political matters to their constituents instead of educating them on matters which were of importance in the provincial councils. I know it was hoped and expected, and it was so expressed at the National Convention, that provincial councils would prove a useful training ground for those who desired to take a larger part in public life afterwards, and perhaps to that extent it succeeded, but the evils that have followed in the train of that policy, I think, outweigh any advantages that may have been derived from it. I think I may offer this as a constructive suggestion. First of all, I believe it would be for the good of this country if the franchise for provincial councils were made as different as possible from the regulations governing the admission of people to the voters’ roll for the election of members of the Assembly. Is there any good reason, for instance, why the franchise for the election of provincial councillors should not be extended to women? Of course, we know that women’s franchise will follow in this country sooner or later, as it has done in other countries, and the experience and knowledge and the desire to study public matters that women would gain in taking part in provincial council elections would be of benefit to them and to the State later on. The provincial councils, too, deal with subjects in which women are specially interested—education, schools, hospitals, care of the sick and poor, and so forth. On this ground alone, it would seem advisable that the franchise, at all events for the election of provincial councillors, should be extended to women. It has proved a misfortune, too, that the number of provincial councillors should be made to correspond, as nearly as possible, to the number of members of the House of Assembly, for each particular province, with the result that they represent the same areas. I know it was suggested at the time that the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the provincial councils might have been altered more in conformity with geographical conditions and community of interests. It was suggested that part of Griqualand West might be attached to the Free State, and portion of the Eastern Province might be tacked on to Natal. Perhaps the time is not ripe for that. So we have stuck rigidly to the principle of the provincial councillors representing in effect exactly the same areas as are represented by members of this House. If the boundaries of an electoral division were altered so that there would be no identity between provincial divisions and Assembly constituencies, I think we would have gone some way, and perhaps a long way, towards preventing provincial councils from being so purely political as they are now. Coupled with that, the extension and alteration of the franchise would also tend to that desirable end. Another suggestion is, why should not the qualifying age for voters be altered? There are perhaps very good reasons and strong arguments for raising the age to 25. It might be argued that as the provincial councils have, powers of direct taxation, and a comparatively small number of voters under 25pay direct taxation, while almost all voters over 25 do pay such direct taxation, that that would be a reasonable ground for altering the age for admission to the franchise so far as provincial council elections are concerned. I do not say that that is necessarily ideal; it is only a means towards a very desirable end, an important end the removal of provincial council matters from the arena of purely party politics. Another point is this, it was obviously intended from the phraseology of the relevant section (81) that education other than higher education should be in the charge of provincial councils for a strictly limited time to begin with, and that, sooner or later, it might be desirable to remove this from the scope of their functions. It is well worthy of consideration now, when the main reasons, which cause this education to be confined to the provinces, have, fortunately, disappeared—it is, as I say, now open to argument and consideration whether the time has not arrived when the Union might take over the responsibility for education throughout the Union. Only the other day we passed an Act confirming the tendency to which this country has been committed for a long time of making an absolute equality of the two languages, both in word and in spirit, and making a knowledge of them indispensable to the youth of this country. If we remove that portion of the spending functions from the provincial councils, which forms such an immense percentage of the whole, I think we will be getting nearer towards a permanent solution of this troublesome matter. I find that in the Cape education is responsible for 72 per cent. of the whole of the provincial expenditure, and, if that 72 per cent. were removed from the purview of the provincial council, that alone would have an enormous effect on the country and on the council.

On a point of order, I would like to call your attention to the fact that there is no quorum present.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

The Baxter report is full of allusions to the fact that the expenditure on education, and the ever increasing demand for funds on one pretext or another, was the most frequent source of their financial embarrassment. We have it on record that the Administrator of the Transvaal pointed out that within a year after an increase had been granted to the teachers, they demanded a further increase of 33 and one-third per cent., and he had great difficulty in resisting that, owing to the political nature of the movement. The Administrator of the Free State has pointed out that there is a solid body of 2,400 teachers in that province, mostly voters. He expressed embarrassment at the political influence which they wield. All these form pretty strong arguments for reviewing the situation certainly as regards education, and this would tend to simplify the provincial financial problem that has been exercising our minds for the last 12 or 13 years. I may be excused at this stage from going into the figures. These figures, however interesting and important, cannot be permanently affected in the right way until we have an absolute change in the foundations upon which the provisional councils rest. For one thing, owing to the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, it follows that we should relieve the country of a great many difficulties if we had the budgets in the provincial councils on a greatly curtailed scale. The words of Gladstone are as true to-day as they were then—

That is a thing you always preach but never practice.

I am endeavouring to explain a difficult matter as well as I can, but apparently my poor pearls of thought have fallen into the wrong trough. It was resolved at the International Council on Finance, assembled at Brussels in 1921, that—

And I wish this could be pinned up in every Administrator’s office.

The whole question of provincial councils having been raised, it is necessary to say a few words from my own point of view, because a difference of opinion has been expressed. Some hon. members declare that the provincial councils should be abolished, and others think that their power should be extended. When the framers of the Act of Union gave the provincial councils the powers set out, they, no doubt, must have intended that they should be worked on political lines, if we apply the maxim that persons intend the material and probable consequences of their actions. If that was not intended, the Act of Union was very unfortunately framed. The hon. member who has just spoken himself indicated that. I do not agree that there is any danger of increasing the power of provincial councils, as Parliament remains the supreme governing body. Those hon. members who think that the vast administration of this country could be carried on in this Parliament lose sight of the extent of our work at present. What chance have we of settling local difficulties in regard to roads and water and the like as they do it in the provinces? The Cape Provincial Council have done more road making since they have been in power than Parliament would have done in 50 years.

What have the divisional councils done?

The divisional councils in the country districts have been rather conservative. It is not merely a question of making roads; they and those they represent have to pay for them. Questions of water supply and other local matters have been dealt with far more expeditiously by the provincial councils than Parliament could have done. This is a vast country and you cannot administer it from one place. The Act of Union recognizes that. Where they went wrong was in providing a machinery that would not work properly. The idea of the provincial councils was excellent and is still excellent, but having given them the power to appoint officers (e.g., the Executive Committee) they did not give them the power to get rid of those officers if they were not doing their duty. Take also the position of an administrator. The Act of Union does not make it clear what his position is. Every administrator who was appointed at Union was a leading member of the political party then in power. That was the first mistake made. In regard to the next mistake, hon. members will remember the first Union election in 1910. At that election, candidates for the provincial council stood at the same time as candidates for the Union Parliament. There was a joint-election, certainly, in the Cape. The party candidate for the provincial council stood on the same platform as, and had a joint election committee with, the candidate for the Assembly. How can it be said that party was not going to come into the provincial councils when at the first election this was done? Everybody realizes that. Then you had the appointment of the Administrator. Where I think the Act of Union is defective, and should be amended, is that the Administrator is appointed as chief executive officer by the Government and you cannot get rid of him.

Do you want a Prime Minister?

I want this; that when you have a taxing body, the chief executive officer may be got rid of as soon as his views do not agree with those of the council. The system you have in the provincial councils today is the system you had in England at the time when the Ministers of the Crown were nominated by the King, and could not be got rid of by Parliament. You have given the provincial councils all the functions of subordinate legislative bodies, but made the position ridiculous by providing them with an Administrator and executive committee who, if they are out of sympathy with the majority of the people with whom they have to legislate, cannot be got rid of. The Act of Union should be amended to provide that the Administrator and the executive committee should be appointed by the provincial council, and the council should be able to get rid of them if they do not meet the wishes of the majority, as can be done in the case of the Union Parliament. Under the Act of Union you have provided provincial councils as subordinate parliaments, but the framers of the Act have added a fifth wheel to the coach in the shape of an Administrator who cannot be got rid of, and an executive committee who also cannot be got rid of. Many of your difficulties, if not all of them, would disappear if your Administrator, as well as the executive committee, had to be members of the council, and could be removed by the vote of the council. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) refers to the United States, but we are not taking away the supremacy of the Union Parliament. The United States Constitution is weak there. I am not advocating the same constitution as the United States. Does the hon. member know the history of the United States Constitution? It was copied from the English Constitution as it existed in the time of George III, and the powers of the King were given to the President. The Americans took a rigid constitution. America would be in a much better position if they did not have their Cabinet nominated by the President. The President and his Cabinet should be subordinate to the wishes of Congress. What happens to-day is deadlock after deadlock between the Congress and the President. The Americans have produced great geniuses in spite of their constitution. It is a very difficult thing to get the constitution of America amended. All the States have to be gone through. We have a much better system here. If our constitution is bad we can alter it but in America it takes years, even if the people admit that the thing complained of is an evil. All these arguments show clearly that the Act of Union is wrong in having given the provincial councils power to do certain things and placed at the head a dictator and an executive committee who cannot be got rid of. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said one of the things people are very exercised about at present is the fact that the provincial councils and the Union Parliament have double taxing powers. That is directly provided for in the Act of Union, in section 85. Where the weakness in this respect lies is in the fact that provincial councils are not subject to the same public criticism as the Union Parliament, and there is not the same interest shown in the election for the provincial council as there is in a parliamentary election. A point which should be consistently urged upon the public is that if they want the provincial council to carry out their wishes they should see to it that at the elections they exercise the same criticism as they do in regard to the election of members for the Union Parliament. It is no good railing at the provincial council system and saying they are doing this and that. It is as representatives of the people that they are doing these things. If these things are against the interest of the people the people should get rid of them. We should rather rail against those who put them in the position. There is one other matter, that is hospitals and charitable institutions, but we cannot deal adequately with these until we know what the Hospitals Enquiry Committee has reported, and whether the Government is going to adopt their report. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what the provinces will receive for the maintenance of hospitals. I am very strongly in favour of education, which is one of the most important things the State can do for the people, but there are other equally important matters, e.g., public health. However, we hear nothing about the health of the country, which, I am afraid, is sadly and absolutely neglected. We want to know whether the hospitals will be letter or worse off than they were before. The position has become so deplorable in regard to hospitals that the public are standing aghast at what is happening. At the New Somerset hospital the X-ray apparatus is no longer in use because of lack of funds, except for limited purposes of diagnosis. Take the question of tuberculosis—how will the Government’s policy help the campaign against that disease? One in every five persons in the Union is affected with venereal disease; how will the Bill help in that direction? It seems to me that the Minister should tell us what the policy of the Government is, and what we may expect from a public health point of view as the result of the passing of this measure. Public health is just as important as education. On the general question I must congratulate the Minister of Finance, for this is the only financial relations Bill which has a statesmanlike touch about it. It certainly deals in a more comprehensive fashion with provincial finances than any of the measures which have preceded it.

One hon. member after the other has said that he did not intend to take part in the debate, and yet he does so, although it is difficult to find a quorum. While some hon. members flatter themselves that they are expressing pearls of ideas, we find that they are only giving a re-hash of what has already been said. I don’t want to say much or come forward with pearls, but I think it is my duty to say a few words on the matter. Members opposite have said that the teachers have always agitated for higher salaries, and an hon. member has also agitated for economy. When his party took over the Government of the country the expenditure was £13,000,000 a year, and in the short period of 14 or 15 years this has increased to £30,000,000. When his party could no longer, by frightening the people with all sorts of stories, deceive them, they began to speak about economy, but not before that time. It was when they stood before the gallows when they talked about economy. Our party has always advocated economy, and we have economized where we could, but we have always said that there was one thing where economy was not possible, namely, in the education of the children of the land. The Government has been reproached for accepting certain recommendations of the Baxter report. It would be a funny thing if poor people who are so prominent in the country, as Mr. Baxter, Professor J. H. Hofmeyr, now Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr. Aiken and Mr. Scott, where they have taken evidence and considered a report, should issue a report in which there is not one good thing which we could accept. We never said that the whole thing was bad, but that there were so many bad things, that we could not accept the report in the main. If we, e.g., read recommendation 272, we find there that the commission states that there are too many of the small farm schools, and that the number of pupils required for such a school ought to be increased to 20 in order to reduce the number of schools. We considered that that was an attack on the child at school on the countryside. The commissioners mentioned live in large towns where everybody can send their children to school every day. There they receive free education; in the Cape Province up to standard six and in the Transvaal up to matriculation. They have forgotten the large number of people who live on the countryside and whose children can only be sent to school by making great sacrifices. Last week I was in the district of Tulbagh and came across a case where a man lived six miles from the school and had to pay £60 a year for lodging for his two children. If the Baxter report was adopted the farm schools would have disappeared in a great measure, and then thousands of children in the Cape Province would have to grow up without education. I will not ascribe any motives to the commissioners, but it is surprising to me that people who ought to know what they are doing can make such a recommendation in all seriousness that would mean that a large number of farm schools would have to be closed down. I can only say that they did it because they want the country child to remain ignorant, to be always the wood chopper and water carrier of the rich and more privileged people.

They can go to school.

The hon. member lives in a big town where his children can conveniently go to school and be educated gratis up to matriculation. In my constituency the children have to travel miles to a little school, and if this recommendation were adopted they would not be able to get to a school at all. That is the chief objection that we have against the report, and now hon. members say that the salaries of the teachers are too high. Unfortunately the salaries have been increased. I can understand that hon. members think so. Their children go to teach in the town schools where they are in the rush of the towns and of the bioscope, and therefore they want the teachers who live on the countryside far away from a library and the bioscope should be neglected with regard to pay. The salaries of the teachers must be increased because the supply of teachers was less than the demand. It is an impossible law. Just as we got five pounds for a muid of corn in 1920 because the supply was too small for the demand we had to pay more for teachers because the number of teachers available was too small for the demand. No one can say that he is against the education of children. How can anyone then be opposed to paying the salary of the teacher? How can he object to pay the market price of the teacher? Now we are getting better schools and we will get more teachers; more teachers will come and then we can gradually revise the salaries. At the moment this is not the case, and therefore the salaries are high. Many hon. members have asked for the abolition of provincial councils. It was a very nice thing of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to hold an election about. We said that the South African party wished eventually to abolish the provincial councils but that they would not do it directly. They wanted to make the councils unpopular with the people by forcing the councils to levy unpopular taxation. Why did they not at the election of 1920 and 1921 and last year take it as their battle cry to the people? They did not dare to. That would have been the right thing for them to have done. I think that it is unbecoming to make attacks in this House if we haven’t the courage to argue the same thing at a general election. If hon. members think that the provincial councils must be abolished then they must advocate that wherever they go. What will then become of the South African party? What will the gallant and loyal Natal say then? The South African party dare not do it. The members from Natal complain that the rights of Natal are being reduced, but they do not speak of abolition. Let me make an appeal to hon. members to stop that sort of thing. Let us help to bring the council on the right road. All bodies of persons make mistakes. We should rather assist the councils. The Minister has tried to give the provincial councils a chance. He proposes to give such powers to them so that they can properly govern their provinces. If we look at the Baxter report we find that it is there proposed to take away nearly all the powers of the provincial councils to levy taxation except a tax on immovable property. The Minister gives them the right to levy quite a number of taxes and not only a land tax. I hope that the Bill will be passed, and if we wish to bring the provincial councils on the right road we shall not regret the passing of this Bill.

I am astonished at the way the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has spoken of the attitude which we take up on this side of the House with reference to the abolition of provincial councils. As parties stand to-day there can be no question of our being in favour of the abolition of provincial councils. If anybody can suggest anything better than what we have today then we could thoroughly discuss the matter, but as we stand to-day there can be no question of abolition without our putting something else in their place. I agree with the hon. Minister of Finance that the provincial councils under this Bill get another chance of going on with their work. They are relieved of the difficulty of finding large sums of money which they had in the past to get in one way or another, because the expenditure on education is now borne by the Union. I think that it is no more than right that the Union Government should take the responsibility of education, and I am only sorry that the Minister has not gone further and brought the whole system of education under the Union, because then we should attain more uniformity in all the provinces. In this very respect there exists to-day many grievances. One of them is the difference in salaries in the various provinces. In the Transvaal the salaries of teachers are reasonable and I am not in favour of reducing them, but the position is that we are drawing the best teachers from the other provinces to the Transvaal. If we compare the Free State with the Transvaal in this respect then the Free State cuts a sorry figure. The reason thereof is that the Free State has never actually gone systematically into the whole system and never taxed itself as the Transvaal has done. Just look at the difference between school buildings in the Transvaal and in the Free State. And as regards the teachers, there are many in the Transvaal—perhaps the greatest portion—who do not possess the necessary qualifications. The teachers there are almost unable to live on their salaries. To put the matter right it would be a good thing if the Union controlled all education. In the Transvaal we have had sufficient capital. Our districts are all sufficiently provided with and possess good school buildings. This was only attained by spending lots of money in the past. I admit that it is true that money has been wasted. First we had the system of central schools. There are central schools in the various districts to which the children go to get higher education, but subsequently we got another system, and the position now is that sometimes only three miles from a central school there is another school building, with the result that the central school in many instances has practically lost its right of existence. Under the old system the children used to come to the central school, but under the new system the schools are taken to the children. Under the old system from 200 to 300 children went to the central school, but now we have some magnificent school buildings which don’t justify their existence. I know of a case in my neighbourhood where only 65 children are in the school. There was no fixed basis on which the system rested. The people were heavily taxed and large deficits existed, which the Minister is now paying. I am glad of it. The taxation can now be reduced in the Transvaal, although I do not think that we shall become quite free from taxation, because there are other expenses which also have to be met. There has been extravagance, but yet we can boast in the Transvaal that our education stands high, and perhaps on a much higher level than in the other provinces, because we did not hesitate to tax ourselves. In the future the hon. Minister will have to meet certain obligations to the provincial councils, and the provincial councils will also know better where they stand. I am only afraid that the provincial councils will, nevertheless, make use of their opportunity of imposing certain further taxation, and now they are in a better financial position to spend more money on other matters. True, a certain limit has been placed. The income tax, e.g., may not be more than 20 per cent., but enough latitude has been left to the provincial councils. The double taxes are something which, if possible, we should get rid of. It is hard for one who has already paid a tax to the Government to have to pay the tax again to the provincial councils. I do not think it is right. Let the Union Government make its tax higher and give the provincial councils a higher subsidy. Another point in the Bill which I do not agree with is that the provincial councils under this Bill are given a tax on immovable property. They actually had this in the past, but in this Bill it is specially stated that they can levy the tax. I fear that as the provincial council is constituted in the Transvaal we shall get that tax there. As for the Cape Province, it will, I think, also not get rid of the land tax, because when once a tax is levied it is difficult to take it off again. That, is why I say it is a dangerous point. Then I want to point out that the Transvaal never got grants from the Central Government like Natal and the. Free State. Natal makes a lot of fuss about the proposals of the hon. Minister, but I hope the Minister will not take too much notice of that. The Free State got £100,000, and still gets it, I think, to-day. I hope an end will come to favouring these two provinces in this way. Let the provinces levy and collect their own taxes. Another point about which I feel strongly is bilingualism. Take in the Transvaal the example of the Heidelberg High School It is one of the large centres of education in the Transvaal, and I will not say that the teaching there is not thorough, but it is a fact that a child who has there passed the matriculation does not know English properly. They cannot write and speak English. If things go on like this, then in our bilingual country the English children who learn Afrikaans will have the preference in all appointments. In Heidelberg it even goes so far that a child will not dare to answer in English. It will be a great mistake if our Afrikanders do not learn English properly. They are only taught English two hours a week and have no opportunity of talking English, with the result that their knowledge of English is very poor.

What about Cape Town?

I just want to say that it will be fatal if our children do not learn English properly.

But Afrikaans-speaking children obtain the highest marks, even in the English subjects. How is that, then?

The position is that the children take certain subjects in English, but it is a fact that at the school in Heidelberg and at the boarding school a child does not learn English properly. We must be careful in this respect. With reference to the entertainments tax, the members on the cross-benches in the Transvaal have always fought against it, but I think that anybody who has money enough to go to the bioscope can also pay 1d. or 2d. for a tax on the admission ticket. The Baxter report was in favour of retaining the provincial councils, and I think that under this Bill they are getting another chance to justify their existence in the future if they do not become political bodies. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is the greatest sinner in that respect. He was the cause of the difficulties in the Transvaal. And the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) is the second offender. They introduced proposals which had no connection with provincial matters. But if the provincial councils can cease to be political bodies they can do very good work, otherwise the public will become tired of them.

This has been a very lengthy debate, but I think it will be generally admitted that the subject is worthy of a lengthy debate. I wish to join issue with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) in his remarks about administrators. He laid it down that they should be elected by the provincial councils; an administrator is the officer appointed by the Government and he is supposed to keep away from all party considerations once he takes office. Many public men have been interested in politics, but no one would say that when they have taken office they have introduced their political views into their duties. Most of the administrators have kept party politics out of their office. I hope the time is far distant when members will be elected to the position of administrators. A man whose name is mentioned as that of a future administrator of the Cape is a man who, whatever his politics, is an honourable man and would not allow his political views to bias his interpretation of his duty. It has been said by the hon. member that the Constitution of America is not right. Is it for a man to get up here and tell 120.000,000 people that their Constitution is not right? No; I think we may leave the Americans to themselves.

I do not think we can discuss the American Constitution in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware of it, you were not in the Chair, but my hon. friend discussed that and I am replying to him. If you say I am not to do it, the hon. member’s words will go out to the world unchallenged.

The hon. member may refer to the American Constitution as an example, and may discuss whatever the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has said, but he must not go too far into that question.

All I said was that he was discussing the American Constitution. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) chimed in with the words “What about America?” I do not intend to go against the ruling, but no doubt an opportunity will occur when one can show that the principle in America is pretty much the same here. Now we come to a subject on which I am more in sympathy with the hon. member. He has made a pathetic appeal for the hospitals and I agree with him in every word he has uttered about the hospitals. It is not so well known to hon. members from the country as those from large areas, that in very many cases the hospitals get a very large proportion of cases, especially of the more serious class, from the country areas where there are not the same facilities for dealing with them and the treatment in regard to hospitals should be more generous. This is a question that can be met by a different form of taxation. In a country which I happen to know, the taxation is allocated so much for this purpose, so much for that, and so much for administration; with the result that a careful interest is taken in the different subjects. When you are assessing taxation in particular areas and the provincial councils have power to assess taxes, and continue your system as laid down, I would suggest that instead of our divisional council boards, school boards and everything of that kind, we should form areas and call them district boards and give them full control over local matters and should confine local taxation to a very great extent to things with which they have to deal. This is along the lines of the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Bloemfontein. I am a very strong advocate of provincial councils and I believe they have served a good purpose, but I also believe the political atmosphere in them is bad. I did make a humble attempt to remove the political atmosphere this year by trying to introduce proportional representation, but the proposal received no sympathy. I only know of one constituency in the Cape province that has consistently returned a non-political member to its provincial council since 1910.

Who is that?

I will tell you. The position is that so long as you keep the political atmosphere in the provincial councils you will never get the work done properly. Take the subjects they have to deal with. Take education. Seventy per cent. of the amount raised is spent in the Cape, and when you come to consider the question of education I think hon. members must admit that the question could not receive justice at the hands of this House. It is a question that deserves the very best consideration and best brains of the country, as it deals with the rearing of the young to become future useful citizens. There was a total of 182,000 children being educated in 1910, and the latest statistics show that we have close on 300,000 children. When one comes to consider the great responsibility in connection with that question, I am sure the political atmosphere which drops into the council’s discussions does not tend to advance the education of the children. The next large question they have to deal with is hospitals. This has been well referred to by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and I will not further refer to it. Then there is the question of roads. Our systems of roads in the different provinces is very different. In the Transvaal the roads are left entirely to the provincial council and in the Cape they are left to the divisional council. I have not had much experience of roads, but taking it all round considering the money the councils have had, the leaving of it to the divisional councils has proved to be better than leaving it to the larger bodies. I am not detracting from the provincial councils, but the divisional council is in closer touch and knows the roads; whereas the provincial council is a comparatively small body dealing with a large area and the most active man will probably be the man who gets most out of the purse for the roads. By the suggested system of district councils, you would get rid of that. I suggest that the roads could be very much improved if something like that could be done. Another thing the councils have to do is to legislate for municipalities. I think that is reasonable. I again urge, as in the case of the education question, that this Parliament, with the many subjects it has got to tackle, cannot deal properly with that. We are not a large country in numbers but we have over 6 millions. Some say we have only 1¼ millions but the native and coloured people possibly demand more attention than the European races, so that we may bring them into a state of civilization. And I suggest that these things ought to get the fullest attention. Under these circumstances, I would suggest to the Government—it may be a difficult thing to tackle—to introduce legislation to remove the political atmosphere from the provincial councils.

How can you do it?

I do not know, I am not a statesman, but when men take up the reins of government they profess to be statesmen. The people who can best afford to pay are the ones who should be taxed. As to the sale and turnover, and other irritating taxes, not one of them has been framed with the slightest idea of taxing on a scientific basis, but solely with the idea of obtaining money in the easiest way. Income tax, however, should be touched by the provincial councils. Most people who pay income tax could probably afford to pay a little more, but you must not tax in such a way as to interfere with trade or business. Tax the wealthy individual or company, and in that way you would get all the money you want without it becoming oppressive to anyone; for instance, if I had £20,000 a year, what difference would it make to me whether I paid £3,000 or £4,000 a year in taxes? After listening to the speeches that have been delivered in the course of this debate, we must admit that Natal has a grievance. I trust the Government will take into consideration the question of the powers given to the provincial councils, and defining them, and also extending the work of the provincial councils, and at the same time to do something to remove them from the political atmosphere, for so long as the provincial councils play with politics in an amateur way, so long will that be detrimental to the councils, which should be useful bodies to the citizens, but not to political parties.

We have had a fairly long discussion in connection with the whole position of provincial councils. There is a great deal to say in connection with these bodies except what can be said in direct connection with the Bill which is now under discussion. During the discussion on the estimates it looked as if hon. members opposite were very dissatisfied with the arrangements that I made at Durban with the provincial authorities, and we expected that there would be strenuous opposition to this Bill. But we actually found that the Opposition have allowed the soft cooing of the dove to be heard instead of the roaring of the lion. The principles of the Bill have actually not been touched upon. Here and there various views have been expressed in connection with the Bill, but the principles of the Bill have never been touched upon. I must say that I am quite satisfied with the reception that the Bill has received in the House. Hon. members objected to my making certain reproaches in my second reading speech against members opposite in connection with what was done by the former Government. That was not quite my intention. I appreciated fully that the provincial question was one of the difficult problems in the country, and that it would be almost impossible to do anything which would not provoke a difference of opinion here and there. I was never so optimistic as to think that I could propose anything in the House that would be accepted with enthusiasm. The fact is that various prominent members of (he Opposition have stated that it is a good Bill, others have again said that it is an improvement on the existing position, and I must say that I never thought that it would be the final solution of the matter. I wanted to improve the state of things and introduced a measure to make an end of the impossible and intolerable conditions of things. I think that I have succeeded. Some hon. members have said that all the suggestions which I have proposed here are contained in a certain report of a commission about provincial affairs which was appointed by the former Government. An hon. member has said that the present Government is using materials of the South African party, that I am inspanning their calf. Let me acknowledge that this is perhaps so. But then there is the outstanding fact that the Opposition were not able in the past to so use their own materials as to produce anything which would be acceptable to the country. If it is true that I am ploughing with their calf, then I must say that that calf is already a young ox with such dangerous horns that I had first to saw them off, and hon. members opposite were so frightened of them that they were not able to inspan the calf. Other hon. members have said that the present Government is in a position of proposing such a thing because the country is in a better financial position. We have seen that conditions have improved. We are glad of if, but It is strange that hon. members have now suddenly seen that the position of the country has improved. The Opposition has stated that the former Government would have done the same thing if they had had the money for it. Let us just enquire a little what happened in this connection. The former Government held a conference here in Cape Town with the representatives of the provincial council and an attempt was made to come to an agreement. That, however, did not come to pass, but it was not due to want of money. Another hon. member let the cat out of the bag. He has said that the present Government is in a strong position, and is therefore able to introduce the Bill. He is right. The Opposition differ from one another about this matter, and when the former Government were in power the views of the South African party were so conflicting that the Government did not dare to propose this matter and to carry out the Baxter report.

What did you say about the Baxter report during the election?

But I am not now carrying out the Baxter report. I would like to point out a little conflict in the criticism which has come from the opposite side. In the first place they complained that we have not sufficiently limited the taxing capacity of the provincial council. This criticism is made because they wanted that we should go as far as the Baxter report. They could not, however, do so themselves because their own party was opposed to it. We said from the beginning that we were against it and that that part of the Baxter report was not good; and it was because we rejected that part of the Baxter report that we are able to bring up this measure. The interests that criticized the Bill in that way would never have permitted the former Government to propose this Bill. In the course of a debate certain solutions were suggested, but as soon as we test those proposals by the practical political state of the country then we see how impossible it is in every case, and as far as the Government is concerned I may say that we had to try to put something before the House by which we had continually to take into consideration the political condition of the country. This is a matter which has long been before the country and we had to take account of the feeling in the country. It has been said here that the provincial council should have been abolished, I will not now go into what the position will be in the future, but no hon. member will allege that it is possible at the moment. If the councils must exist, and that is the case if we take count of the feeling of the majority of the people, then we must not interfere with the constitutional rights of the provincial councils. I took up this point of view, and therefore in this Bill it is not proposed to transfer the powers to the Union Government in cases where the provincial councils do not agree to it. We decided to do nothing by force, and that is the point of view from which we went out. That is also my reply to hon. members who say “Yes, but this or that service should rather have been transferred to the Union Government.” If we do not take up this attitude what will then be the position? There are certain people who say that education is a national matter and that therefore should be controlled by the Union Government. Others again say that our roads are a national matter. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has pointed out that our roads are in a terrible state and that the Central Government ought to see to it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) says that the hospitals must go to the Central Government because the position is so unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) have talked here about the “boete” bush (xanthium spinosum) and said that the extermination thereof also appertains to the Central Government. What will be the end of it if we take those services away from the provincial council? The necessity for the existence of the council disappears then, and in my opinion, it would give ground for the abolition of the provincial councils if they must disappear some day. My position is that we should have the full agreement of the provincial council if we want to encroach upon their constitutional powers. The first principle of the Bill about which something was said was the subsidy. Hon. members accented and I need not go into it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) found fault with us because we paid the subsidy on the basis of the average attendance at school. He thinks that we should rather have taken the number of pupils there are on the roll. Other hon. members have already pointed out that this would mean that we should have to pay £14,000 per annum more in subsidy. The commission recommended this basis and arrived at it as follows. They took the cost of education in the country, thereafter they deducted everything that they considered necessary and divided it by the number of children who attended school on the average. In that way we came to the present figure. If the number of pupils on the roll were taken it would simply have meant that the contributions per child would have been less. The hon. member for Standerton further complained that I, with regard to the first 30,000 children in the Cape Province and Natal, paid the higher allowance of the Transvaal although we have to do here with coastal provinces. He wants the lower scale to be paid. I think, however, that he will not get much support. We think that in the special circumstances in which the Cape Province is, with its great distances, and also in the special circumstances of Natal, with its small number of pupils attending the schools, we were justified in departing in this respect from the Baxter report. Now we come to the amount of the subsidies, and some members thought that we should reduce them more. Other members of the Opposition and of the rest of the House showed that we could not possibly do so. We must, therefore, take it that I have adopted the only sound principle, viz., when I decided that a certain choice should be left to the provincial councils with reference to what special taxes they would impose. The hon. member for Standerton objected to my naming certain taxes in the schedule and said that that was practically an invitation to the provincial councils to propose those taxes. The alternative is to give the provincial council the general right to impose any direct tax. It is one of the principles of the Baxter report that a list of taxes should be assigned to the provincial councils. I do not think that the objection of the hon. member should carry much weight because the councils are ingenious enough to find taxes if they wish to impose them. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) asked why in addition to the allowances per head a further subsidy is given. He says that we give them the power to get everything by means of taxation. If the hon. member considers the matter he will see that what he here advocates is impossible. He will see that it is impossible for all the provincial councils to get in all their money to make their Budget balance by means of direct taxation if the Union Government does not place certain amounts at their disposal. The hon. member must therefore see that there is no alternative unless we wish to compel the councils to impose a land tax. Then a few taxes have also been objected to, e.g., the employers tax. Let me say at once that the Government regrets very much that that tax has to be included in the Bill. In Durban I tried to induce the councils to give up those taxes. I made provision therefor in the subsidies. The Transvaal, however, refused to do so. We started in the beginning from the principle that we would not do anything in that direction that was not absolutely necessary unless we could get the consent of the provincial council. We then permitted the tax, but we said that we would reduce the subsidy in the same proportion as that tax was imposed. As hon. members will see, there is every encouragement to the provincial council to make no use of that tax and then the councils will be entitled to the full subsidies. But naturally the councils will have to advise the Treasury early of their intention so that the necessary arrangements can be made to provide for the money. The councils must see to it. Further, the double income tax is objected to. In this respect also I wish to point out that it is no extension of the powers of the provincial council, the tax already exists in two provinces, and all the provinces are entitled to impose it. Various hon. members have mentioned that it is undesirable to have a double tax and to assign the same sources of taxation to two different bodies. I have acknowledged that. But if we do not grant those powers it will be impossible for the provinces to make their Budgets balance. Hon. members say that the Cape Province and Natal will now also have it. But if we take away that power, what will then become of the position in the Free State where it is necessary?

They want a land tax there.

Yes, that is the alternative, and that is what the hon. friends would like. I have to do not only with the general principles of taxation; I must also take into account the circumstances of the country, and then we see that we have sometimes to do things which are indefensible in the matter of pure scientific principles of taxation. Against the position of Natal in connection with the trade licences a great objection has been made. I am very glad to hear that the hon. member for Standerton has laid down (he fixed principle that Natal is not entitled to a penny more than the other provinces, and that that province has been very well treated in the past. As for me, I may say that I tried to arrange for it to be unnecessary to give Natal this £30,000 a year. I then said to the Natal Provincial Council that they should take those licence moneys. They said that there was no difficulty in the way in Natal and requested me to include the section in the Bill, inasmuch as I had to introduce it into the House to regulate the whole position in the provinces. But the constitutional position is that the Provincial Council of Natal has the right of introducing legislation with reference to that matter to give the licences back to the town councils. It is not excluded by the Bill, and if any doubt exists about it I am prepared to remove it. I do not intend to encroach upon the constitutional rights of the Natal Provincial Council. My only difficulty is that I undertook to the Natal administration to include it in the Bill. Hon. members for Natal have already telegraphed that I am willing to leave out the section if the administration give their consent.

I have already had a reply that the administration did not consent. I am in the position that I have undertaken to put the matter right, but I gave the undertaking that the licences would be under the control of the Natal Provincial Council to do with them as they please. I just want to remove a few misunderstandings in connection with this matter. Much has been said by the Natal members about licences; the hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Anderson) has mentioned various amounts which municipalities would lose in Natal if the new system was carried through. I wish to tell him that the amounts are entirely wrong, because they include various licence revenues that I have no intention of taking away. In connection with Durban, it has been said that the municipalities would lose £40,000, but in fact it is not more than £20,000, and it is proportionately less for the other municipalities. The hon. members have said that Natal is not being rightly treated now and that the province would have been much better off with the application of the recommendations of the Baxter commission. They have said that Natal is now losing £200,000. But what is the difference between the recommendations of the Baxter report and my scheme? Natal now gets £2 7s. 6d. per child more than under the Baxter report, and this on 21,000 children makes a difference of £50,000; then there is the special grant of £75,000 which the Baxter commission wished to abolish; further, we have the licence moneys up to an amount of £60,000, and over and above this the costs of technical education will be borne by the Union, which will bring the amount by which Natal will be better off under my scheme than under the Baxter report up to £201,000. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) criticised me on that very point. He has said that I was too generous in my proposals and that it would put the provinces into the position to become just as extravagant as in the past. That may be so, but the member for Standerton had the opportunity of suggesting to us one way or another of preventing this. In my opinion there is only one way to stop the provinces becoming extravagant, and that way is in the hands of the voters, who can call their representatives to account. I only wish, further, to touch on a few small points. The hon. member for Standerton expressed his disappointment about the repeal of the uniform scales of salaries for teachers. We discussed the question here last year and fought it out. Hon. members know the opinion of the Government about the matter, they know that we do not agree with them, and they know also that although they passed the law it cannot be carried out, and that the Public Service Commission cannot see their way to apply it. We are opposed in principle to the measure and how can hon. members now expect that we shall apply it notwithstanding that that is practically an impossibility. The hon. member for Standerton regrets that we do not retain control over native education. We can consider that. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has talked about hospitals and he asked what provision would be made to put the provinces in a position of properly maintaining the hospitals, but the hon. member for Standerton rightly pointed out the generosity with which the provinces are treated and how they will now be able to spend more money on hospitals than ever before. The relation of the administration to the executive committees has been mentioned and an alteration been insisted upon. In the Bill, however, we deal with financial matters and the other matter would necessitate an alteration in the Act of Union. It is impossible to do this now even if the Government agreed to it. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) enquired whether the provincial councils were entitled to impose a wheel tax on the natives. The law does not prohibit this and it is done in the Free State. It is within the powers of the provincial councils under the constitution. There are several more matters mentioned by members but they can quite well be discussed in committee. I will then be ready to give any information and I hope that the Bill will now be read for the second time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on Monday.

There are one or two matters I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to on this vote. Can he give us any idea of the policy of the Government as regards the differentiation between the men on the railway and the men on the public service with regard to local allowances. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the recommendations of the public service advisory council in regard to the amendments they suggested, after a year’s experience of the council, viz., the question of having an official side as well as a staff side, and that full-time officers of associations should be eligible for membership of councils. The third point I would ask, is that they should not withhold official recognition of any organization simply because they are affiliated with or have connection with a non-service organization. If they want to join with an outside organization, the Government at present withdraws its recognition. I would like to congratulate the Government on the fact that part of the naturalization fees show a substantial reduction, viz., from £5 to £2 10s. The fees are still fairly high, but there has been a substantial reduction in this connection. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) raised the question of immigration. I welcome the efforts of organizations like the Memorial Settlers’ Association. Recently on a journey from St. Helena I came across a number of these settlers, and fine men they were. I think the hon. member for Illovo should not be so narrow towards the men who come from Central and Eastern Europe. I don’t think he knows these men, and he does not realize how many of them have made good in South Africa, otherwise he would not be constantly raising this question. Does he know that the “mealie king” and the “potato king” of South Africa are both immigrants from Eastern Europe. In raising this question the hon. member is doing a disservice to South Africa.

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

When the House adjourned I was referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in connection with immigration, which were more or less a repetition of what he said last year, except that last year he referred in more general terms to people coming from southern and eastern Europe. The hon. member last time was rather surprised when hon. members over here took his remarks as a reflection on Jewish immigrants. If he will listen to the facts, he will not be surprised. I do not know if the hon. member has taken the trouble to go into the matter, but if he does he will find that the vast majority of Jewish residents in this country either came themselves from central or eastern Europe or are the descendants of people who came from there. I was pointing out to him before the House adjourned that it was quite impossible to condemn people in the wholesale way that he does. He said that they were mostly hawkers and that they were a bad example to the natives. Let me tell him that some of the men who became millionaires in South Africa began life as hawkers. If he will read the early history of Kimberley, he will find that there are many baronets and knights to-day who were not ashamed to hawk in those days. I once heard an hon. member, who did not come from central or eastern Europe but who came from England, inform the Cape House—he is one of the biggest merchants in this city and he was once the senior member for Cape Town, a man who by his public life and example had been an honour to South Africa—I heard him tell the House that he came to South Africa with a half-crown in his pocket. I will only say that, if the views of the hon. member for Illovo had been prevalent in those days, that gentleman would never have been allowed into this country. Even today desirable men are kept out if they have not the money required by the regulations. We have very stringent tests—education test, financial test, health lest, character test. You cannot simply walk into South Africa. The hon. member, by calling them hawkers, evidently wanted to convey the impression that they were no good for South Africa in the way of agriculture. Let me tell him that these persons if encouraged are the finest agriculturists in the world. The man known as “the mealie king” of the Transvaal was one of these immigrants. He grows more mealies than anyone in the Union. The man known as “the potato king” in the Free State is also one of them. These men may begin as hawkers, but they do not end as such. The most scientific grower of fruit in the Western Province also came into the same category, and he is regarded as an example by other growers. There is a factory at Wood-stock—the hon. member may laugh, but this is a serious matter, and I want hon. members to know the facts—which is the most celebrated factory for blankets in the Union; and they do not use a single bit of imported material. Does the hon. member know that the father of these men who run the factory was an immigrant from the country he is condemning? I am in exactly the same position. I was born in a little town in eastern Europe. My parents were immigrants from eastern Europe and I came here with them at the age of three, and if the hon. member had had his way I suppose they would not have been allowed to land in South Africa. He perhaps realizes now when he makes this sweeping condemnation, as he always does every year when this vote comes up, that men like myself resent these remarks and look upon them as a slight to our parents. For him to come and tell this House that all immigrants from central and eastern Europe are useless to South Africa is surely to show that he should try and broaden his mind a little. I, for my part, am very glad to see immigrants from all parts of the world so long as they are suitable to build up South Africa. Why he should try and condemn people who come from Lithuania or other countries in central or eastern Europe I cannot understand. They do not ask for a single sixpence from the State, they are not encouraged to come here, no glowing inducements are held out to them, they simply come as pioneers and to make South Africa their home. They do not cost the country anything, and I should have thought the hon. member would have welcomed this system of immigration. Under the immigration laws we can keep out anyone at all undesirable. If men can pass the drastic restrictions of the immigration laws there cannot be anything much wrong with them if the laws are properly administered.

It is very noticeable and also interesting to see that our archives are developing, although the development does not keep pace with the importance of the matter. There are, e.g., to-day very important archives which stand in close connection with the history of the country. Certain important archives are in the possession of our Dutch Church, and those documents are papers which must be looked after very carefully. Now the church has not so much interest in the matter as the State, therefore I think that the church should transfer the matter to the State. Those priceless documents which have such a close connection with our history require and ought to be properly arranged and filed and partially reinstated, otherwise information will be entirely lost. Now it was the custom in other countries (and, I think, it still is to-day in some) that the State should demand such documents from the church. But of course that time is now past; to-day there is too good an understanding between church and State for such a thing, but still I think that one of the two methods should be adopted with reference to the matter. I think that it will be very wise for the hon. Minister to first approach the churches with the proposal to take charge of all the records of the church under an inventory. I hope that the hon. Minister will make such an offer to the church to arrange all the documents and bind them and see that they are conserved in the future. I think that it will cost a little extra, about £1,000 a year, but the work is well worth it. This will possibly mean that certain places should be extended for our archives, but if one goes to-day to the archives, then you see that that important work is carried on in a place underground which is fairly stuffy and inconvenient, and if one goes to the archives you find that it is divided into two portions. One portion has been brought into the cellars of this House, the other is in the cellars of the Supreme Court. Even if the archives of the churches are not taken over, an extension of accommodation is necessary. Now I have not in view only the churches as a whole. I think that there are old congregations, such as Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Malmesbury, Tulbagh, Swellendam, etc., who have documents in their possession, and if one wants to examine the documents to-day, then, firstly, a great difficulty exists in getting at them, and, further, one must search from morning to night for certain documents and in the end not succeed in finding them, because the documents have not been properly arranged. Many of the papers are already commencing to perish. If it cannot be done to take over the documents, then the church could be promised that free copies would be given to the church as often as they wished and that we could say to them the documents remain the property of the church and that the State only have the control, so that the public have the use of the documents. If this cannot be done, then possibly the church can arrange the documents in their archives in Cape Town according to the various congregations, and they can, if necessary, appoint their own man to look after the documents, while the Government can offer its help and advice to the church, because this is a work which must be done by an expert. It is not the work of every man. I speak about this because I know that to-day much research work is being done regarding history. Many students come from various places to make investigation, and it is extremely difficult for them in the short time they have to get hold of all the documents they want. I leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Minister, and hope that he will give his attention to the matter so that we shall retain for posterity the documents which are of such importance to the history of our country.

I think it would have been much fairer if the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) had listened in the first place to what I had to say. When I made the earlier part of my speech he was not in the House at all.

I heard all you said.

Then the hon. member must have heard it by telepathy, because he was certainly not in the House when I began my speech. The hon. member has accused me of taking a narrow view of this question, and he has waxed exceedingly warm in assailing me on matters which I have never mentioned. Let me remind him that the whole of my speech the other evening was directed to the need for a constructive immigration policy, and in doing that I referred neither directly nor by inference to the Jewish people. So far from ever having had any prejudice against them, for more than 20 years I had the closest relations with some of them. My own family solicitor belongs to the Jewish race, and he is a credit to any race. On these wholly incorrect premises, the hon. member makes a violent assault on me, on the unfair assumption that I have a blind, unreasoning prejudice against every Hebrew in this country. The reverse is the case; but the remonstrances which he directs in an almost personal manner to me would seem to have a more direct application to the Government of the United States of America, whose laws are designed to exclude or restrict immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, and he should address them to that Government. As I pointed out the other evening, the whole of the experience of the American immigration law, summarised by Dr. Davie, professor of the science of society, Yale university, is to the effect that the restrictions, such as have been imposed since 1882—because up till then there were none—the restrictions that had been applied in America are designed to lessen the flow of people from southern and eastern Europe, and, if possible, to increase the immigrants from north-western Europe. That was the whole burden of my speech the other night, and I challenge the hon. member to substantiate, from any speech I have ever made, the suggestion he would like this House to accept, that what I have said on the question of immigration is inspired by any racial motive. It is of some interest to observe that the experience of America proved that a change in the law was desirable there, and the Act of 1917 was introduced with this object. Dr. Davie says—

That the restrictions have operated in that manner too, is proved by statistics, which show that whereas a million and a half people, in 10 years who were illiterate, had been admitted before this test was applied, this test both reduced the number of illiterates and the number of people coming from those countries; because, unfortunately, for the people of those countries, illiteracy is very prevalent there. The writer of this book does not contend that this is a good basis; but he indicates that this is the sole basis upon which these restrictions have rested in the past, and if the hon. member was anxious to prove that my wish to restrict this source of immigration arose from narrow-minded views, he should first have made good his accusations on that line, against the statesmen of America, whom I heard him praising this afternoon.

You didn’t.

I heard him praising the system of America.

I praised what had been done in spite of the system.

I accept that. I have no wish to be unfair to the hon. member. I am only sorry he does not reciprocate. The hon. member accused me of treating his remarks with laughter. At that moment I was laughing at a joke which emanated from the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and not at what the hon. member said.

That is why you cannot follow the debates.

I think it is a case with the hon. member of Satan rebuking sin. He is probably one of the rowdiest members in this House. The position in America has been based upon the restriction of immigration from southern and eastern Europe. It has been made to appear that by referring to recent immigrants as hawkers I wished to disparage them. I said a great many of these people had no trade at their finger ends and Hansard, when it is available, will bear me out. I said a great number of these people enter this country with no trade at their finger ends, and for that reason they were in the nature of parasitical people; because they came here and had to take up occupations such as that of hawker and eating-house keeper, and occupations of that sort, which brought them into contact with the natives, while they had insufficient experience of South African conditions and were likely to bring down the prestige of the white man. I repeat that. The type of man who comes here unacquainted with the proper relationship that should subsist between white and black in this country is only too prone to bring down the prestige of the white man. In speaking of the undesirable character generally of immigration from those countries, I spoke probably with a much wider and more intimate knowledge of the subject than the hon. member himself. I know the conditions in the Free State, the Transvaal, Natal and considerably also in the Cape Province, and I know what he probably does not know: the attitude of the natives towards these people and the regrettable undermining of the prestige of the white man that has been brought about by the influence of these people on the natives. For that reason I have been opposed and have expressed myself as opposed to the licensing of people who are insufficiently acquainted with the proper position that should subsist between white and black in the case of storekeepers in native areas. We should maintain the highest standards there, and I have always endeavoured to see that licences and trading sites should be given to South Africans who have lived a lifetime here and understand something of the relative positions of white and black.

Before we pass the Minister’s salary, I should like a word or two with him in regard to the election of senators. This takes place under the system of proportional representation, and during the process of the election certain individuals are sworn to secrecy. They are, I believe, the returning officer, his assistant and the assessors. They make oath not to disclose any facts or any information relative to voting coming to their notice under these regulations. I do not know whether the regulations intend the voting for senators either at a general election or by-election to be kept secret or not. One half of the regulations appear to imply secrecy as desirable, but later on the returning officer and assistants are bound to furnish the Minister of the Interior with the names of the persons elected in the order of their election and to transmit to the Minister of the Interior a special return showing the various steps of the election as well as the result thereof. There is no provision for the Minister of the Interior taking an oath of secrecy. I suppose, under a Constitutional Government, his first duty would be to report the results and the calculations to his Cabinet, and we know that a secret is no longer a secret when it belongs to one or two people. The practice seems to me very strange and most undesirable. We have some people in possession of information sworn to secrecy and some not sworn to secrecy. I would ask the Minister, in his reply, to give us the essential facts and figures in connection with the recent election, which must be in his knowledge. He and his departmental staff are not bound to secrecy, and presumably he has communicated the information to others. The whole matter seems to require revision. The regulations should be such as either to require absolute secrecy or not. I see no reason why the full details of election results should not be disclosed. These anomalies place the returning officer and his assistants in an invidious position, because there is nothing to prevent this information being disclosed by the Minister of the Interior, although they are sworn to secrecy. I should like to have the Minister’s statement, in detail, of the information he has in his possession in regard to the results of this election, and to know what his views are in regard to the manner of conducting these elections in the future.

Before this vote is passed there is one thing I would like to get from the Minister, and that is, what he has done, or intends to do, to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate affair that happened early this year, namely, the deportation of certain waiters from the Mount Nelson Hotel, Cape Town. Several waiters were contracted for by the Union-Castle Company in London. They were brought to this country under contract, and after working a few days, the men stated, in an interview with the press, that they found the conditions here were not consistent with what was represented to them in London, and when they complained about it one of their number, who had had some difference with the chef, was taken and summarily dismissed. Within ten minutes there was a policeman at the hotel and the man was deported. The others, seeing this, went to the manager and suggested that he should not be sent away, but that they should have an opportunity of stating their case to somebody, and this being refused they struck work. It was stated by an official of the Union-Castle Company that these men were truculent and they could not be allowed to dictate. The police came, and they were taken to the docks, detained in a close room, prison, I suppose, something like Ellis Island, during the night put on a ship, and at day break deported from our shores. I am not much concerned where we get our suitable immigrants from, but I am very much concerned as to what we do with them when they get here. If the action of the immigration officials was legal, then it is time the law was altered. I also understand that there was considerable harshness on the part of the officials of the immigration department in the administration of the law. I hope the Minister will bring in this session a measure to amend the immigration law, and will take steps to see that the law is administered in a proper manner. It is quite possible to take any Act on our statute book and to administer it in such a way as to bring the whole code into disrepute.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has gone out. There is not a word that he has said to-night that he has not said before. I will put it in the form of a syllogism. He condemns immigration that comes from eastern Europe, hence he condemns the immigrants from eastern Europe. The vast majority of the immigrants from eastern Europe are Jews, and a general reflection on immigrants from eastern Europe is a reflection on the Jewish people, who form the vast majority of such immigrants. He says he did not mean the Jewish people, and if that is so then his whole case falls to the ground. He referred me to America, but when South Africa has a population of about 100,000,000 like America has, then will be the time to talk about these restrictive laws. I thought South Africa was crying out for immigrants, yet the hon. member for Illovo seriously wants the House to adopt the American basis. So long as the immigrants are desirable, and are men of good character, and comply with our laws, I think they should be welcome. The hon. member for Illovo has proved every word I utter. I wish to support the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) with regard to registration of voters. Europeans and non-Europeans should be treated in exactly the same way, in this matter.

When we were considering the Public Service Act, 1923, the Government printers applied to be placed on the pension list, and it was said that they could not come under the Pension Act. The then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Duncan) was preparing a Bill to give some relief to men who were not contributing to any superannuation or pension fund. The last we heard of the matter was that the Bill had been sent to the Public Service Commission for its views. Will the Minister inform the House what is the present position?

I see that provision is made in the estimates for payment of a further £700 towards the cost of buildings at the National Botanic Gardens, Kirstenbosch—certainly a very admirable expenditure. I don’t think sufficient provision is made for these gardens, which are doing wonderfully good work in the testing of medicinal plants, but the only fairly large export they have is buchu. If the National Botanic Gardens were worked in connection with the Agricultural Department, then we might have a return which would be of great value to the country, for the agricultural department could deal with the matter of growing plants for export on a commercial scale. If we could put sufficient money behind the National Botanic Gardens to make them an advantage to the country, so that what is tested could be largely grown by people in the country districts, there would be money in it. Any business men would turn this into a big thing. We should make the export of buchu and other products a question of tonnage and not of ounces, or samples.

I hope the Minister will forgive me for again drawing his attention to a matter of which he, perhaps, considers he has heard more than enough. There are grants of £28,000 odd to museums, art galleries and kindred institutions. If this amount includes the restoration of the grant to the Natal State library at Maritzburg, there are hundreds of men and women who will be glad to read tomorrow morning that the Minister has said so.

I see that under the heading of registration of voters the Parliamentary election expenses have been reduced from £15,000 last year to £500 this year. I suppose that the £15,000 was required for a general election, and I take it that the Minister does not anticipate that there will be another general election this year.

In January last a very important deputation waited on the Viceroy of India to make representations regarding Indian affairs in South Africa. The deputation represented all classes of the community, and the great subject of complaint was the passing of an Ordinance in Natal, which took away the right of Indians to vote in Natal so far as the future is concerned.

The hon. member is now advocating legislation

That is exactly what I am not doing—I am against legislation. I am going to point out what the consequences will be of agreeing to certain legislation. This is an extremely important matter. The deputation pointed out that there appears to be a change of policy in the Union, and that the late Government disallowed certain Ordinances, which infringed on Indian rights, but now these Ordinances have been allowed to go through, and the Indian Government is very much alarmed, and very grave uneasiness is being caused. The Viceroy proposed that there should be a conference between representatives of the Indian and Union Governments. I wish to know what is the policy of the Government with regard to this matter. Furthermore, during the last election attention was paid to Indian affairs in the various addresses of candidates, and I think I am correct in saying parties represented by the Pact Government promised comprehensive legislation would be introduced dealing with the latter matter. I have not been able to put my hand on the exact speech, but I want to know what the position is. Are we going to have any legislation, and, if so, what? I ask for a clear declaration of their policy in regard to India as it affects Natal and the Transvaal.

When can I speak about the establishment of a national park in connection with the protection of game?

When the vote for lands is under consideration.

The question of the boroughs ordinance in Natal referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is one that very closely affects the future management of many of the boroughs and townships in Natal, and if that ordinance had not been introduced we should have been within measurable distance of finding the whole control of sanitation and matters of that sort passing into the hands of people dependent upon the Asiatic vote. It was an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. We were obliged to move in the direction of having the borough ordinance passed, and it has been passed as a result of representations from the Natal Municipal Association. We should welcome the ordinance because it conduces to greater cleanliness with regard to the towns in Natal, some of which were considerably; degenerating owing to the preponderance of Asiatics, particularly towns such as Stanger, Verulam, Ladysmith and Newcastle. I was sorry I was not in the House when the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) spoke. I had been called away. The point I wish to appeal to the Minister on is this: that under the present laws, which are of a negative kind stating that certain kinds of persons can be excluded, any immigrants can come to our doors, and we are much in the same position described by the Commissioner-General of Immigration in the United States of America, who states that they were in the position that any alien could knock at the door and on being asked who he was could give his name and refuse any further information as to his antecedents. The whole tendency of legislation proposed in America at the present time is in the direction of putting the burden of proof of admissibility upon the alien himself, and it is for him to have to show that he is affirmatively and satisfactorily a desirable immigrant. Combined with that it has been suggested that there should be strict medical examination and an intelligence test. During the great war 1,700,000 recruits in America were subjected to this intelligence test and of these 25 per cent, were found to be of inferior mental capacity, 61.5 per cent, were in the middle group and 13.5 per cent. were in a superior group. It is suggested in America that some such test as this should be applied to immigrants, irrespective of race questions altogether. This intelligence test, it is suggested, should be enacted in the laws of America so as to conduce to the admission of the best type of immigrant irrespective of his race. I make that suggestion to the Minister because I think it is one he should take into consideration in connection with the immigration laws of this country. In Canada and Australia they find the best principle is to indicate the kind of immigrant they prefer, and they have not the same amount of trouble as they experience in America in rejecting the undesirable and unwanted. It is stated on the authority of this book that by way of contrast the immigration policies of Canada and Australia are positive. They encourage to come only those immigrants they desire. They do not take a negative attitude and admit everybody and then select at the port of entry the individuals they don’t want. I think a forward immigration policy is a desirable thing and I was glad to see a reference the other day in “Die Burger” recommending an immigration policy with a view to supplementing the far too small population of this country. I think something might be done with regard to the two organizations, the 1820 Memorial Settlers Association and the Van Riebeek Association, which aim at creating a steady stream of immigrants from over seas to this country. The 1820 Memorial Settlers Association has introduced 1,877 immigrants who have brought with them capital to the extent of £3,000,000. The cost of introducing them has been at the rate of £11 10s. per head. The cost ratio to capita introduced has been 14s. 5d. per £100. I think those are satisfactory results, and I would suggest to the Minister for his consideration the desirability of subsidizing institutions of this sort on the basis of results, that is to say the Government might consider the question of giving these two associations some sort of premium on the settlers they introduce and in that way, although not prepared to go in for a policy of State immigration, to promote and stimulate immigration from abroad of a desirable kind.

I want to ask the Minister if he can give additional information with regard to the repatriation of Indians from the Union, whether the volume of repatriation has increased owing to the increased grant. Can he give us any figures? I would like to ask if the Minister is alive to the danger of Indians coming into the Union from East Africa, and whether effective measures are being taken to prevent such a thing.

The late Government on more than one occasion refused to agree to the passing of that Ordinance. The present Government held the matter over until they received a deputation from the representatives of the community, and then finally agreed to the Ordinance. You cannot justify it in the few words of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that the non-Indians were in favour of it. Here are South African-born who are going to be deprived of the right of having a municipal vote in future.

Doesn’t he think that is a good thing?

No, I don’t. I don’t believe in making distinctions, except on the ground of character, and certainly not on the ground of race. I can only say that legislation of that kind is going to breed serious trouble in South Africa. The policy of justice is the only right policy. With regard to the point on immigration, the hon. member for Illovo will be better occupied by reading our own immigration laws instead of American books. He read an extract that if an immigrant goes to America he can refuse to answer questions and they have no hold on him, and he implied that that applied to South Africa. I would like to bring the hon. member from America to South Africa. He seems always to have his eyes on America, and I want them on South Africa. He implied that in Canada the onus of proof is on the immigrant, and that we lack such a law in South Africa. Under the immigration law of 1913, section 23, he will find the onus of proof is always on the immigrant. The hon. member, apparently, is not aware of the tremendous powers under this Act. The immigration officer to-morrow may come to a man who has been here ten or fifteen years and say, “I accuse you of being a prohibited immigrant.” That man has to prove that he is not a prohibited immigrant. The onus of proof in South Africa is always on the immigrant.

The onus of proof in a variety of subjects I was referring to.

I am referring to the Immigrants Regulation Act. The onus of proof here is stronger against the immigrant than anywhere else. In regard to the education test, we have got such a test already.

It is not strict enough.

Perhaps it is not strict enough from the point of view of the hon. member, if he wants to keep this country as a close preserve for a few people. Hon. members know that, so far from refusing to answer any questions, as referred to in the hypothetical case in America, you have got to fill in forms on board ship before you come here. You have got to fill in the answers to a whole series of questions, and if any of the answers to these questions are false you can be persecuted for perjury, and if you do not answer all these questions you can be refused admission.

It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is so exaggerated in his language that he does not put things properly before the House. If he knew more about the conditions of affairs in Natal in regard to Indians, I do not think he would have made such statements as he has made to-night. I can assure you, sir, that the ordinance which was passed and agreed to by the present Government is a very necessary ordinance, because in some of these towns in Natal the Indians are in the majority, and if they had the vote they could appoint their own sanitary officers, or defy the sanitary officers, and do exactly what they liked, and be a menace to the rest of Natal. Even in Durban they are so numerous in some of the wards that they could put their own member in the Town Council. These are things that we in Natal have got to guard against. I think this talk about causing disturbance in India is very much exaggerated. For many years in India the Indians had not a vote even in their own towns, so that they have no grievance on that ground. In regard to these matters I can assure hon. members that it is a question of self-preservation in Natal, and we have got to pass these ordinances in order to keep ourselves in our proper place.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is prepared to take all our Indians in Natal and accept them in Cape Town. I can assure him that if he lived close to some of these Indians he would realize what insanitary people they are. We feel that the passing of this ordinance has been most necessary, and I consider that Natal is indebted to the Government for assenting to it. There are many small villages in Natal which have not dared to become townships for fear that they would come under the domination of the Asiatic vote, and, now that this law has been passed, there will be an opportunity in some of these small villages to take the option and become townships, I can mention one small place where there have been 13 cases of enteric due to the insanitary conditions under which these Asiatics are living. I wonder whether the hon. member for Hanover Street would like one of his children to marry an Indian. Justice is a matter which is relative. You cannot put all these people on the same plane as ourselves.

What about the colour bar?

I do not think that the hon. member for Hanover Street should have put his finger into this pie; he should have kept it out. We have enough trouble in Natal without the hon. member for Hanover Street in this House championing the supposed rights of the Indians in Natal. They have, hitherto, had no free right to vote in their own country.

In many cases these people were born in Natal.

The whole of their minds are on Asia, and the whole of the means they make here they send to Asia. They are not South Africans, and the sooner we get rid of them out of South Africa the better.

You admit them to the Natal Law Society.

I have to deal with a very large number of questions which have been raised by hon. gentlemen, but I will try to get through to-night. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) raised the question of the repatriation of Indians and asked whether I could give him any figures. I think I gave figures to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) the other day. It comes to this, that since 1914 we have repatriated Indians at the rate, more or less, of 2,000 a year, and that has been done for about £8 per Indian. As the hon. gentleman will know, we made a new departure some months ago by increasing the inducement to Indians to leave the country. That new departure has had a very good effect, and in six months the number of Indians who have been repatriated has increased by about 300. That means that about 600 more under the new scheme will be repatriated annually.

You have not increased your vote?

No, the vote has not been increased. Then the hon. member (Mr. Deane) asked whether we have given any attention to the possible entrance of Indians illicitly from the side of East Africa. I must say that such entrance has not been brought to my notice at all. As far as my information goes, the means that we take for the prohibition of the entrance of Indians into the country are very effective.

*Then there is a question by the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize), but I think he understands that it does not arise here. I think he asks whether anything could be done in connection with a park for the conservation of game. This concerns the Minister of Lands.

†Then another question has been asked in connection with Indian affairs by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who asked whether any representations had been received from the Government of India with regard to native affairs, generally, in the country, and suggested that in connection with that we should have a round table conference.

The suggestion came from the Indian Government.

Yes. I can tell the hon. member that we have had a communication from the Government of India recently, but no reply has so far been sent, and the whole matter, so far as the reply is concerned, is under the consideration of the Government at the present moment. It is very inadvisable before the Government has properly considered the reply to give any information about that to the House, or to say what my policy is. Then the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) has asked me a question with regard to the money on the vote in connection with Parliamentary elections, and he has asked that very pertinent question whether we expect a general election during the coming year. I quite realize that the hon. gentleman has asked that question in fear and trembling.

Not as regards myself—I am all right.

I can assure him that his mind in regard to this may be quite at ease. The Government, as far as I can see, is quite safe and the Opposition need not fear that in the immediate future its number will be still further decreased. Let me give the further information that the sum of £500 for parliamentary elections is voted every year to make provision for possible by-elections; that is the customary thing to do. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has again raised that hardy annual as to the provision in the estimates for a subsidy to the Natal State Library. I can only give him the same reply that I gave some months ago, namely, that the whole question was settled in 1913, by the Financial Relations Commission, which went into the whole matter at the time. At that time it was decided that there shall be for the Union only two national libraries, one in Cape Town and the Government Library in Pretoria. We all realize that if the Government should now depart from that policy, which was made after due inquiry, the question will then have a much wider bearing than Pietermaritzburg, because the people of Bloemfontein will at once ask why, if Natal can have a subsidy, they should not have one also, and I should say that Durban would come after that and then Johannesburg, which has a very important library and is the largest centre in the country: and, of course, in justice to them all, we should have to give a subsidy in every case. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. gentleman, because I know what excellent work these libraries are doing and what interest is taken in Natal in that particular library. At the same time I am very sorry to say I cannot give the hon. gentleman any hope. Then some mention in regard to the Kirstenbosch plants was made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). I do not quite know what the hon. gentleman was driving at; but it is only an experimental garden as far as plants are concerned of economic value. I am only sorry that the Agricultural Department does not make greater use of the information resulting from the experiments taking place at Kirstenbosch. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has raised the question of provision for the staff of the printing works in Pretoria. This should have been raised under vote Printing and Stationery, but as it has been raised here I can only reply that this is a question which really belongs to the Treasury, and I think it should be addressed to the Minister of Finance. The question of the recent election for a Senator has been raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I want to ask him, because I may have misunderstood him, whether he meant to suggest that any information which I received in my capacity as Minister of the Interior was divulged to anyone in the public.

The position is this. Certain people connected with the election were sworn to secrecy. The Minister is not sworn to secrecy, and if information is handed to him he can without legal impropriety divulge that information. I said that it would have been strange if he had not intimated to the Cabinet of which he is a member that information. It might be his duty to do so. If, therefore, that information was known to more than one unsworn individual why should it not be made public property, not only in connection with this election, but all elections of senators. The practice hitherto, though not the law, has been not to divulge any details of the method by which the results are arrived at. I hope I have made myself clear to the Minister.

If there is any insinuation that I have divulged anything—

No.

Then it is entirely wrong. I did not receive personally the report from these scrutineers, and the only information I have officially is just a note from the Secretary of the Interior that that report has been received by the department, and the only information I can give is this, that the results on the statement are given as follows—

I have never seen a report received from the scrutineers in any election for the Senate, but as far as I can judge, the report from the scrutineers is quite of a general kind so far as the figures are concerned. They simply state how many votes are recorded in favour of a certain candidate, and, secondly, how many votes in favour of another. And they give a description of the whole course which their calculations have taken.

I spoke of figures only.

These figures are quite general, and the oath of secrecy on the part of these scrutineers, as far as I can judge, will apply only to the actual ballot papers, because these scrutineers can know, when they look at the ballot paper, for whom the particular voter has voted, and they are bound under the oath to secrecy. As far as I know, they may not even give that information to the Minister.

*The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) spoke about our system of archives. He asked whether the archives of the Dutch churches should not be handed over to the State for safe custody. He also made the suggestion that the State should ask the churches to hand over the valuable archives to the State for safe keeping. I have, personally, not the least objection to it, nor to making the request to the churches. I may say that recently a request was received from the “Hervormde” church in the Transvaal to house their archives in that way. That was done, and the archives were handed over to the archives in Pretoria. The archives board intend shortly to make a general request of that nature to the various historical churches in the country. The hon. member also made a remark about the accommodation of the archives in Cape Town. I must say that there is much to be desired. What is more, the archives have been brought into Parliament House, and I understand that the internal affairs committee have already given notice in clear terms that they want to have possession of the accommodation, where the archives have been stored, for the use of the Senate and the House of Assembly, and the archives department is in the position that it may have some time or another to leave the rooms without knowing where to go to. Therefore the time has come, or will soon come, that provision must be made for the archives, and I will add that the management of the library have offered a piece of ground which is very well suited for a building for the archives. I have considered the matter and entered into negotiations with the Treasury, and I hope within a comparatively short time to make provision for the department of archives.

†The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has asked a few questions in connection with the Civil Service. One is in regard to the difference in the local allowance to public servants on the one hand, and servants of the Railways and Harbours Administration on the other, and more particularly to the discrimination which is made at present between married and unmarried men. I can inform the hon. gentleman that the Government is going into this whole question. The Public Service Commission, which has made this recommendation so far as the Public Service is concerned, which was accepted by the previous Government, contend that, apart from rent, the cost of living is the same in a place like Johannesburg, for instance, and a place like Cape Town; that there is actually no difference, and that the only difference is in regard to rent, That affects the unmarried man to a very slight degree, and not so much as the married man, and that is really the ground for this discrimination on the part of the Civil Service Commission. There is much discontent among the Public servants; because that discrimination is not made in the Railways and Harbours service. The Government is going into this whole matter. A preliminary discussion has already taken place between the Minister of Railways and myself in regard to this matter, and we have, more or less, come to an agreement; but before taking any further action, we first wish to lay the whole matter before the Cabinet; but an opportunity for that has not arrived yet. He raised another point, in connection with the public service advisory council I think the point is this: That the public servants, especially as they are represented in the public service advisory council, want the whole constitution of the advisory council changed. They want something, more or less, on the lines of the Whitley council and the institution of an appeal Board. I can say, in reply, that representations have been made to me by representatives of the different sections of the public service. The whole question was gone into by the Select Committee on the Public Service Bill in 1923; but that whole suggestion, as it came from the public servants, was turned down. The matter was very exhaustively discussed in Parliament at that time but the public servants were not content. When the change of Government came, they represented that it might now be possible, with the change of Government, and change of policy, to get this change in the constitution of the Advisory Council. My reply to the representations that were made to me was that it is a big question and that before we make any alteration in the present arrangement it is necessary for the Cabinet to go very thoroughly into the whole matter. As these representations were made to me shortly before I had to leave Pretoria for the session of Parliament, there has been no opportunity since that time for me to lay this matter before the Cabinet. I have informed them that I could do so only at a later date; and I hope that the Cabinet will go very thoroughly into this whole matter immediately after the session. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has asked why there has been a reduction in the vote for museums, libraries, etc. That reduction affects only the National Botanic Gardens at Kirstenbosch. A special grant was made last year as a contribution towards capital expenditure on the pound for pound principle. During the previous year the subscribers contributed £1,400, but for the current year they will contribute only £700.

*Then the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has asked me a question, and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) asked the same question, viz., why the notices in the Cape Town Museum are only in English. This is a reasonable complaint and I have brought it to the notice of the management, the answer of the management is that an alteration in that respect will be made within a reasonable time. I hope, therefore, that an improvement will be effected in that direction.

†The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked me whether the time has not arrived to do away with passports. There are two arguments against that. The first is a financial one, but I don’t think that is the chief argument, although arguments of that kind generally appeal to the hon. member.

Not taking money out of people’s pockets.

The passports bring in about £6,000.

That is no argument. It is the spending I object to.

Another argument is that the issuing of passports is not a matter altogether in our own hands, it being an international arrangement. All that we can say is that we will not demand passports from people arriving in the Union, but if other nations continue to demand passports we have to issue them to people leaving South Africa. I do not think the system of passports will be done away with by civilized countries at all, as it has been a very valuable means of controlling the movements of undesirables, and thus far the only civilized country which has done away with passports is Canada.

Why not reduce the charges?

That is a matter of reciprocity between us and other countries. If they reduce the visa fees we will do the same. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has again raised the question of immigration. He has been criticizing not the administration but the law, and he wants to substitute the American system for our present law.

No, No.

We do not pretend to control immigration. Our law has only to do with keeping out undesirables, but the quota system of America is intended to control immigration, and if we are to control immigration—as an attempt was made by the previous Government in the case of arrivals from eastern Europe—then the law will have to be changed. We could not do it administratively. As pointed out by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) we have to do with this very sad phenomenon that more Europeans are actually leaving our shores annually than are arriving.

Has not that stopped under the new Government?

I have a very great hope that it will stop, because we are tackling the great problems that underlie that state of affairs. We must make it possible for Europeans to live decently in this country and we are beginning to do that with our legislation, and when we do that that state of affairs will come to an end. And only after that could we give consideration to what the hon. gentleman wants. A question was asked by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) with regard to legislation to be introduced by the present Government in connection with Asiatics. I can only say it is a very big and complicated question, and it is only expected of a Government before introducing legislation that it should go very thoroughly into the question. I have tried to do so during the recess, but the recess is very short, and I undertake, if it is at all possible, to introduce a Bill in connection with that question during this session, although I cannot give any hope that it will be introduced before the very end of the session. I have no hope that this Bill will get on to the statute book this year, but I have very good reasons for introducing it this session, as I shall explain when the Bill is introduced. The only progress I have been able to make is that I have gone into the whole question. It is quite clear to me what the lines should be on which we should have legislation, and I have indicated those lines to the Government. The Government has approved of my suggestions, and I have asked the department to prepare legislation on those lines, and it has done so. I have just received the Bill and I will give it my attention.

Cannot you publish it now?

I am not ready yet.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) has asked a question in connection with climatic allowances. This is a matter which comes under the vote for the Public Service Commission, and I will therefore allow the matter to stand Over.

†The question of the zoo at Pretoria has been raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), and he asked if it would be possible for the Government to meet the deficit of £2,000. I have had representations from the managers of that institution, and during the discussion it was evident to me that the deficit would not have been there if the municipality of Pretoria had done its duty to the institution. I think that institution ought to receive a larger contribution from the municipality, because it is one of the greatest attractions of Pretoria. On behalf of those managers I approached the municipality, with very good results, and I hope the municipality of Pretoria will give the services—that is the supply of water and light to the zoo, for which the management have to pay—that they will supply these services free. If they do that, I am assured by the management that they will balance their accounts every year. With regard to the deficit, I hope the Treasury will agree—it has not been agreed to yet—to give some assistance to the paying off of the deficit. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has asked a question with regard to the monthly trade statistics, and asks why they are not being published earlier. The census and statistic department is dependent on other departments for the supply of its information, especially the mines and industries departments. I must go into the matter and see if we can speed it up. Then a question has been asked by the members for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) and Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) with regard to the so-called deportations of the waiters of the Mount Nelson Hotel some time ago. This episode has undoubtedly focussed attention on an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and for that reason I am glad that we have had that episode. The practice has been in existence for many years, but, so far as I know, it was quite unknown to the general public. It was always customary, when contract labour was imported by employers from overseas, to demand from them the completion of a form of guarantee. That form of guarantee demanded from them that they shall maintain the employee for two years, and if during the course of those two years they want to get rid of the employee, they shall give timely notice to the immigration authorities, and pay the expense for his return voyage. In practice it works out like this: The employer, very often—as it was in the case of the Mount Nelson Hotel the manager—decides to get rid of his employee and to send him back to Europe. He gives notice to the immigration authorities the same day, and they send that man back the next day. The initiative taken in regard to deportation of such an employee was in the hands, rot of the immigration department, but of the employer. That was an unsatisfactory state of affairs, especially so because the employee in such a case had no chance whatever to go to the courts if he had any grievance. Now I have gone into the whole matter, and I have changed that form of guarantee, under the powers given me in the Immigration Act, in the following way. In the first place the employer, if he wishes a contract to be terminated and to send the employee back to Europe, must give notice to the immigration department a month before he wishes to send him back, and at the same time he must give a month’s notice of the termination of the contract to the employee. I have made this further change, that a duplicate of the contract entered into between the employer and the employee, before his arrival in the country, must be sent to the immigration authorities for their information. If I judge, as Minister of the Interior, that the wages under that contract are not adequate, then I consider such an immigrant not desirable, and I keep him out. With regard to the fixing of the wages, I keep in the closest communication with the Labour Department, and in regard to that I am going to be advised by the Labour Department. A question has been asked by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) in regard to the £500 on the vote here for historical research. That vote of £500 is intended as an annuity to Sir George Cory. Sir George Cory has done excellent work, invaluable work, in connection with historical research in this country. He is a professor of chemistry at the Rhodes University College and is over the age of retirement, but the pension to which he will be entitled when he retires is exceedingly small, and the position is such that it is practically impossible for him, after having devoted so much of his means to historical research in this country, to retire. What we want to do is to give this annuity for historical research as an addition to the pension which he will get when he retires and make it possible for him to retire and devote the rest of his life to historical research, in which his heart is. We do that in the interests of historical research, but at the same time, I think we can consider it as a well-earned tribute on the part of a grateful nation to the work that he has done for South Africa. Then the hon. member (Sir William Macintosh) asked another question in regard to the increase in the number of clerical assistants in the Census Department. There are eight new ones. On the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, who have gone thoroughly into the arrangements in the Census Department, we have done away with seven temporary posts, and have substituted in their place eight permanent posts. That, after all, does not make any very great alteration. The increase in the temporary posts is accounted for by the provisional, preliminary work which has to be done this year in connection with the population census, which has to be taken in the early part of next year.

You have increased your temporary assistants all the same.

Yes, that is owing to the necessary preliminary work which has to be done in connection with the census. There is one more question, a very important one, I should say, asked by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He complains that in the work of the biennial registration a discrimination is made by the canvassers between Europeans and non-Europeans, and he has gone so far as to say that we give every assistance to Europeans to become enrolled, but that, as a department, we place obstacles in the way of the non-Europeans. I do not think that that is stating the matter quite fairly or correctly. The hon. gentleman also asks what was the legal sanction for making this discrimination, and I think he insinuated that in making that distinction or discrimination I acted illegally. For the information of the hon. gentleman, I think I should just read to him sections 4 and 5 of the Electoral Act of 1918. In section 4 (2) (a), we have the following—

According to this section the canvasser has to place on the provisional roll the name of every person who is on the existing voters’ roll. He must inquire whether such person is still qualified, and if he finds that after due inquiry that he is not qualified he must leave him off. In B we find that he can put in the provisional voters’ list the name of any person not registered on any existing voters’ list, but who produces the necessary particulars to the satisfaction of the registering officer in proof of his claim that he possesses the necessary qualifications to have his name inserted on the voters’ list for that division, and is subject to no disqualification. This means that he must be satisfied, if a person has not been on the list before but wishes to be placed on the list, that he is properly qualified. It is provided in 5 that every registering officer shall have the power and is hereby required to demand any information necessary to enable him to ascertain what persons are qualified to be registered as voters in his division, to identify any person or ascertain the place of abode of any person or whether he was qualified or disqualified to be registered as a voter. That is the legal ground for my action. I must explain to the Committee further that three different forms are used to get this information. The first form is R.V. 50. This is left at the house of every person on the existing voters’ list and it must be filled in by or on behalf of a European or non-European on the existing voters’ list. No distinction is made except in one respect; that this form is left at the house of the European, but not at the house of the non-European; but the canvasser has got instructions that if he does not find a person at home he must go back afterwards and fill in the form at that House, or if he cannot find the person, then somebody else in the neighbourhood who could give information must help him to fill in the form. That distinction is made simply because experience has shown that in the case of non-Europeans forms left at houses are to a large extent either not returned or lost. It is simply a matter of convenience, and certainly not to put an obstacle in the way of the non-European public. In connection with new names, forms R.V. 51 and R.V. 9 are used. These two forms are practically identical in every respect. And both these forms must be signed by the person who wishes to be enrolled. The only difference is that in R.V. 51 only the name of the person is signed by the person himself; but in the case of R.V. 9, which is nothing more than the usual form of claim prescribed under the Act, the person must not only sign his name but also write, with his own hand, his occupation and address. That is the only difference. Why, in the case of Europeans, should form R.V. 51 be used, and in the ease of non-Europeans R.V. 9? Because, in the case of non-Europeans, we want to apply the education test, and that for a very good reason. The canvasser is required by the law to satisfy himself that the person who applies for registration is properly qualified. In the case of Europeans, we have had compulsory education for many years in this country, and the census figures show only 1½ per cent. of the adult male Europeans are illiterate; so it is absolutely unnecessary in the case of the European to apply the education test. But there is no compulsory education for the non-European, and the hon. gentleman knows that the percentage of non-Europeans who are illiterate is very large. And therefore it is very necessary to apply, more strictly, the education test in their case. That is all. There is no principle underlying it except that we have a prior discrimination in regard to Europeans and non-Europeans, and that is in regard to education. The hon. gentleman is aware of it—I do not suggest he has anything to do with it—but every hon. member is aware that there is a great deal of humbug that has been going on in the country in connection with the direct evasion of the education test, and I, as Minister of the Interior, have the obligation resting on me—it is my duty—to see to it that the provisional lists are correct, and therefore I have to apply the education test.

I do not know whether the hon. gentleman suggests that the humbugging has been among the coloured people.

No, no. I said a great deal of humbugging has been going on in regard to that; but I did not suggest that it was on the part of the coloured people; except with one exception which I shall mention. It is going on the part of party agents.

Nationalist party agents as well.

Unfortunately the coloured people so far—it is to be changed in the future—have voted for the South African party. Let me just mention that one exception. Unfortunately, as our law stands to-day, there is a direct inducement for the native—I am not speaking of the coloured man—to get, if possible, on the voters’ list; because if he does that he is exempted from the liquor law restrictions.

Does the Minister suggest that the non-Europeans who wish to get on the register alone are guilty of humbug, and that they require to be carefully watched as they are the uneducated people? But what test has he that the non-Europeans alone are uneducated? There is no test at all. A European may never see the form. Take my own case. I saw no form. I was not even asked to sign a form, yet two of my employees were required to fill in the whole of the form. That is according to the Minister’s instructions. A coloured man is required to complete the form. If a coloured man is not at home when the canvasser calls he is told to go to the nearest police station.

If that has been done it is contrary to instructions.

This is the second occasion that I have brought this matter up. On the first occasion I had not the courtesy of a reply from the Minister. If these instructions do not mean that the coloured people are not trusted, and that every obstacle is to be but in the way of their being registered, what do they mean? The Minister has read the Act and has interpreted it correctly, but his own canvassers are not interpreting it correctly, and they are encouraged by these instructions, which are contrary to the terms of the Act. What proof is there that a European still resides at the place at which he was previously registered, or even that he is still alive? The registration officials are making a distinct difference between Europeans and non-Europeans, and they are encouraged in their wrong doing by the Minister’s instructions. Under the Act a man is required only to fill in his address and sign his name. There is no provision in the law that forms should be completed in the presence of the canvasser. Many canvassers are putting every obstacle in the way of non-Europeans being registered. In the Cape Peninsula alone the registers have gone down to a very large extent, because the non-Europeans are being kept off the roll.

The rolls are correct now—they have not been correct before.

They are not correct, unless by correct the Minister means he has succeeded in keeping off a large number of coloured voters who are entitled to be registered. Is the Minister prepared to have an investigation into this matter?

Yes, I am sorry I did not reply to that one point. I ask his pardon, I forgot it. Unfortunately, I lost my notes and spoke from memory. I wish to say, if in any particular case a canvasser has demanded of a coloured person, that he should go to the police office, and give information, then that canvasser has exceeded his instructions. It is impossible to go into the matter if no definite complaint has reached me. It is quite clear what the hon. gentleman has to do. He has to bring a particular case or cases before me, and I promise to go into the matter. I have only general statements before me now.

I am sorry the Minister has only mentioned this now, and not when I first brought it up. Reports have gone to the department, and the department was asked to receive a deputation, but they refused to meet the deputation. After that I came to the House and mentioned the matter to the Minister, I think it was when we discussed the Additional Appropriation Bill, but I received no reply. Whether the Minister forgot to reply or not, I do not know. But the Minister did not reply to me then, and some months have gone by since. I again brought up the matter a week ago, and since then nothing has been done. I want to impress on the Minister the necessity of appointing a Commission of Enquiry into the whole matter. I think we should have it because thousands of men are left off the roll illegally, and these men cannot possibly get on the roll again until December, and then only after great trouble. It means people have to go round to the registration office and make application for registration. The Minister shakes his head. I do not know if his officers are not instructing him properly, but it appears he does not know anything about the practice. Whether canvassers have exceeded their duty I do not know. Some of them have exceeded their printed instructions which go beyond what the law requires. The position is very serious and it is only reasonable we should ask for a strict enquiry to be instituted and go into the matter fully. If the Minister is prepared to do that I will say nothing further.

Yes. But I can only institute an enquiry when I have a concrete case of complaint before me. The complaints of the hon. gentleman are of a general kind, and I cannot order an investigation on complaints of a general character. I have enquired as to whether a request has been received by the department to receive a deputation in connection with these matters. I have just received information from the Secretary of the Interior that no request from such a deputation was received by him.

I can personally swear he had a request and the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) also knows he had a request.

I would like to refer to this apparent wages immigration bar, referred to by the Minister, whereby any person coming to the Union under contract is not to be allowed to enter unless the Minister is satisfied that the wages paid under the contract are adequate. I would like to ask him for the authority for this course. If he refers to the Immigration Act he will find that the only ground upon which the Minister can exclude such a person is if such person desiring to enter the Union is not in possession for his own use of sufficient means to support himself and such of his dependents as he may bring into the Union. That refers to the present possession of means at the time he may desire to enter the Union. I wish to know what is the effect of this rule that the Minister has laid down? Is it to apply only to those who are engaged by contract to labour within the Union or does he propose to extend it to those who may arrive on the borders of the Union, and who have no friends, or at any rate, who have no employment, but who are promised assistance by their friends? The ground to which I have referred on which he can exclude such an immigrant is that he is not in possession of sufficient means. I would like to ask him what he would do if a contract labourer arrived who was in possession of £20 or £30, and who had been engaged at wages which the Minister did not consider adequate? Again, if he is going to lay down some particular wage bar, will he tell us on what it is based? In face of the remarks made by the Minister this should not be a bar as far as I can see from section 4 of the Act of 1913, and I would ask the Minister specifically under what particular section he is acting.

If the hon. member looks at section 5 (h) of the Immigrants’ Regulation Act of 1923 he will find the following—

He must thus be engaged at adequate wages, and the Minister is the person under this Act to say whether the wages are adequate or not.

I would appeal to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Coulter), to assist the Minister in this matter. Let him take the whaling industry in Natal. Here we have sons of South Africa quite capable of working in that particular industry, and yet there are certain persons here working in South African waters who are importing men from Scandinavia and other countries at a lower rate of wages than they would have to pay to South African seamen. They should be sufficiently patriotic to say that our own people in South Africa should be in a position to be on equal terms with people who may be merely imported. It is not a question which merely affects the working classes or the Labour party; it is a question which affects the whole future of South Africa. I would ask the Minister to see that openings are provided in South Africa for the people of South Africa at a living wage and where they shall not be subject to competition from China, Japan or other countries. As to the registration of voters, may I point out it is necessary in view of the fact that it is much harder to keep a check on the coloured and native voters, to have some distinction between the voters. It is much easier considering the numbers of natives living in one place for any unscrupulous person to place a large number of unauthorized native or coloured names on the roll unless some efficient check is improvised by the Minister to see that nothing of a fraudulent nature takes place. I hope the Minister will see that the check he has been keeping on this registration is maintained in the future. I want hon. members to remember in their eagerness to push forward the registration of natives that they are not always going to be content to vote for European representatives in this House. The time will come when those hon. members who are so keen on pushing forward the registration of non-Europeans rather than Europeans will regret doing so.

No. No.

No party can go on exploiting the non-Europeans for ever and ever for party purposes. I hope the hon. gentleman will take heed and realize that it is in the best interests of this country that this matter should be placed on a proper basis. I hope the Minister, if he proposes acting on the suggestions of the hon. gentleman, will also at the same time make a careful investigation into names put on the roll that should not be there at all.

I wish to sustain the point mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I had a very warm controversy with a registration officer in regard to this very question. I pointed out to him that the form which he was insisting on these people filling in exceeded any regulation I was acquainted with, and exceeded the actual requirements of the law. The registration officer told me he had nothing to do with that, but that he had definite instructions, and these were what he had indicated to me. I would like to know from the Minister what is going to be the position of these men, who, if I am right, may have been excluded from the list, and I am sure a large number are likely to be excluded. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) I think we are perfectly justified to claim, on behalf of the natives, that so long as the law permits them to come on to the register, and so long as they can fulfil these requirements, it is up to us to see that they are treated fairly, and in a legal manner.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), I think he will see that he has fallen into an error through overlooking the section quoted by the Minister. If he has a certificate, he comes under section 5. If he has not, he comes under section 4. The Minister, I take it, is not going to recognize the document referred to in section 5 unless adequate wages are paid. I think what the Minister really intended to convey by quoting section 5 was that, owing to the form of the bond, great injustice had been caused in certain cases. It does not follow that if the Minister refuses to recognize the certificate, the man may not come in as an ordinary immigrant. If they come in the ordinary way to look for work, they come under section 4, and the Minister is quite right in the attitude he is taking up. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) he has missed the point entirely. The law gives absolute equality to all persons who are voters in the Cape Province. It is no use telling the Minister to stand firm. You are asking him to overstep the law. As the law stands to-day, there is no distinction in the Cape between the native and the European voter.

The Minister should keep his eyes open.

I do not object to the Minister keeping his eyes open; but if there is humbugging, why are the facts not made known to the Attorney-General? The person who gets a voter on to the roll has to sign a certificate that the man filled out his name, address and occupation, in the presence of the former, without the voter’s hand being guided by anyone. If there has been any humbug the person responsible should be prosecuted, but when you issue a notice to say you are going to check humbugging, you must make it apply generally. It is not a fair thing to apply a stricter test to one class than to another. If the Minister is issuing a special list of instructions against non-Europeans, then he is breaking the law. For many years licensing courts of the Cape Province have been making stipulations that coloured men shall not be allowed to obtain liquor within certain specified hours, but all these conditions have been set aside by the Supreme Court when the matter has been brought to its notice. I would suggest to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that he should send to the Minister the names of persons who have been hampered in the way he described. The matter certainly ought to be investigated.

With reference to the statement of the hon. member I would just like to say a few words. I cannot yet see where he gets the right from to make one section of the voters fill in one kind of form and another section another form. Why is the coloured voter asked to write his name and address as a test, as the hon. Minister says, and that is not demanded from white people?

That is the law. It is not necessary for white people.

For many coloured people it is not necessary either. Many people have been left off the voters’ roll through the difficulties placed in their way. In June we had a good interim registration, but I understand that at the biennial registration no less than 1,000 voters were left off the roll in my constituency. Let me mention a case which was brought to my notice. The official came to the house of a coloured man who was not at home. He asked the wife where her husband was. She said he was not at home, and asked what the official wanted. He said he had come to register her husband. With that he went away. He did not leave a form.

The canvasser should have returned.

That did not take place. After a few days the man went to the registration office and asked how the registration stood. The official then said to him that he must go to the police station to be registered. The man did that. But in this way many people have dropped off the list because so many difficulties are put in their way. In the Paarl alone the number is about 140. And in the case that I have mentioned it was not that of a man who could only read. He was on the list. He can read and so can his son. Moreover, his son’s name appears on the list. I hope the hon. Minister will institute an enquiry as was suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), because then he will find that much humbug goes on and—

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on Monday.