from inhabitants of Kroonstad, praying the House to have Kopjes declared as a separate fiscal division.

similar petition.

I wish to call the attention of the House to the Railways and Harbours Service Bill, as amended by the Select Committee. The charge upon the public proposed by the Bill as read a second time and referred to the committee will be increased if certain of the amendments made by the Select Committee are adopted. It was therefore out of order for the committee to make these amendments without an instruction from this House upon the recommendation from the Governor-General to consider the proposed increased charges. In view, however, of the fact that the Bill is to a considerable extent of a technical character, and in view of the lateness of the session, I would recommend the House to condone the action of the Select Committee in making these amendments, provided that the defect is cured by the announcement in the House of the Governor-General’s recommendation to the proposed amendments referred to before they are considered in committee of the whole House on the Bill.

Ordered accordingly.

Director of Irrigation, 1910 (from date of previous reports in Cape and Transvaal Provinces to the date of Union, and from the commencement of Union to the 31st December, 1910).

Petition from inhabitants of Kenhardt, in opposition to the proposed lease or sale of the farm Leeuwkop; report on Rooiberg Dam, in compliance with report of the Select Committee on the Rooiberg Dam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In the Select Committee on Public Education I voted for certain amendments of the draft report. These having been rejected by a majority, I voted for the draft report, rather than foe a party to rendering the proceedings of the committee fruitless, at the same time signifying, not for the first time, my intention of submitting a minority report, in order to make clear the points upon which and the extent to which I dissent from the majority. A minority report was presented by my honourable and gallant friend the member for Pretoria South (General Beyers) and myself jointly. When I was about to sign it, I received verbal intimation that I was debarred from doing so by having voted for the majority report, and I was actually prevented! from doing so. I beg to call your attention, sir, to the fact that in the Public Accounts Committee this year it was unanimously resolved that the chairman report the Exchequer and Audit Bill, with amendments. Notwithstanding this, Messrs. Merriman, Orr, Currey, Jagger, and Robinson were permitted to sign a minority report, which begins as follows: “We are unable to concur in the proposed amendments In the Exchequer and Audit Bill, which relate to the provisions for audit of railway and harbour accounts.” This appears to be a parallel case, and I therefore hope that the rule suggested in my case will not be insisted on. I wish also to point out the grave consequences which may result from this rule. It would mean that if a member differs from the majority and desires to bring the point of difference before the House in the form of a minority report, he is compelled to vote in favour of wrecking the whole agreement arrived at, even though, while desiring to see the majority report improved, he may prefer to see the adoption of it unimproved rather than nothing. The rule might further result in the defeat of a settlement on an important question by a majority composed of members, none of whom desire its defeat, but all of whom differ from it on one or other point, and are compelled by the supposed rule to vote against it if they desire to make an effective protest on the points where they differ from their colleagues. The rule would thus tend to eliminate moderation. Under these circumstances, I desire, sir, to ask you for your definite ruling on the question whether a member of a Select Committee can be debarred from signing a minority report, if he desires to do so, and to intimate my wish that, if possible, my name should now be appended to the minority report on Public Education.

On Monday, shortly before the House met, my attention was drawn by the Clerk of the House to the fact that a minority report in connection with the inquiry by the Select Committee on Public Education had been sent down from the committee-room for signature by the honourable member for Pretoria District, South (General Beyers), and the honourable member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), but that, after consulting Monday’s minutes of proceedings of the Select Committee, it had appeared that the honourable member for Uitenhage had voted for the majority report, although the honourable member subsequently intimated his intention to submit a minority report. As the minority report is directly in conflict with some of the principal recommendations of the majority report, I verbally informed the honourable member for Uitenhage that it would not be proper for him to sign the minority report, and instructed the Clerk to submit it to the honourable member for Pretoria District, South, only for signature. In my opinion, it would be quite improper for an honourable member, when he votes for a majority report, to submit a minority report, the terms of which are directly in conflict with the recommendations of the majority report. If this were allowed, there would be nothing to prevent all the members of the committee who voted for the majority report also signing the minority report, and it would be impossible for the House to say what the decision of the committee was. I should like to mention that on Tuesday morning, after the majority report had already been set up in proof, the honourable member for Uitenhage, contrary to the direction which I gave the day before, appended his signature to the original minority report, and I have caused the same to be expunged. It only remains to be remarked that the honourable member no doubt quite unwittingly put his name to the report on Tuesday, as otherwise such a proceeding would constitute a serious breach of the rules. The point mentioned in regard to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on the Exchequer and Audit Bill has no bearing on the question at issue.

said he thought it was due to the House that the Prime Minister should inform them, what legislation it was proposed to take this session. It was impossible for the House, for any considerable time longer, to legislate as they had been doing during the last couple of weeks. It was not fair to the House, to the Speaker, to the officers, or to the unfortunate gentlemen in the Press Gallery to go on as they had been doing. If it were intended to sit for any considerable time, they ought to revert to the three-nights-a-week sittings; otherwise, justice could not be done to the business of the country.

said that the Leader of the Opposition had evidently managed to remain hale and hearty—witness his vigorous speechifying—in spite of the harmful effect of evening sittings, of which the hon. gentleman had complained. The Government would make a communication with reference to the Bills they desired to finish on the following day. As to the prorogation, however, that was a matter which rested entirely with the House itself. The Government wished nothing better than to close the session as soon as possible; hence the daily evening sittings and the encroachment on Saturday leisure. The Government, at one time, were in hopes of being able to finish the work on Saturday next, but that had proved impossible because the Estimates and other financial measures had yet to go through the Senate. He could not but address an appeal to hon. members to curtail the debates in order to render an early prorogation possible. He only wished to add that the House would silt again on Saturday, as it had done last week.

asked if it was intended to sit on Saturday?

replied in the affirmative.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

asked what the proposals of the Government were with regard to the disposal of the brandy now in hand, which could not be sold until a certain decision of the Cape House had been rescinded. He thought the Government should take measures to bring the matter to a conclusion.

replied that the Public Accounts Commission were dealing with the matter, and as soon as the recommendations were made they would be laid before the House. He was anxious that the brandy question should be dealt with this session—(hear, hear)—but it would be useless to have two discussions.

The motion was agreed to.

called attention to the vote for Provincial Administrations, and pointed out that in one column they had the total £5,309,418, while in the next column the subsidies to the several Provinces were shown. He said it seemed to him that the effect of clause 3 was that any saving made by a Province in respect of one vote could not be used for any excess in respect to a sub-head of the same vote.

said that the hon. member had not read far enough. He should also read section 2, and he would find that the Estimates and Suplementary Estimates of Expenditure as approved by Parliament were appropriated in this Bill, and if he looked at the Estimates he would see that these amounts in the Cape Province were voted under four sub-heads. If there was a saving on one it may be applied to another.

said that the effect of the Act was that any saving made by one Province could not be taken by the Treasurer and applied to another Province.

It is not clear to me that it will be possible to use the saving on one subject for the excess ’on another.

said that this did not refer to the allocation of the money. It simply meant, in terms of clause 3, that they could not take money, say, from the Cape and give it to Natal. It must go to the Cape.

The schedule was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved in line 8 of the clause, after “presence of” to omit “the” and to substitute “any”; after “law agent” in line 9 to insert “lawfully entitled to practise as such,” and in the same line to omit “by whom the instrument was drawn or prepared.” He said the object of the amendment was to bring this clause into conformity with clause 25.

said he was sorry he could not accept the amendment, and he hoped that it would not be pressed. Under section 25 (sub-section 3) wide powers were conferred upon attorneys, notaries, conveyancers, etc., to cancel stamps. That provision he inserted at the request of his hon. friend, but he was not sure that he was wise in accepting it, and in fact he should be glad to see it expunged from the Bill. The effect of clause 25 would be that a document was prepared and executed. Under section 21 (sub-section 1) such a document may be stamped, and the stamp defaced at the time of execution or seven days thereafter, by any of the parties there to, or by the attorney or notary who prepared it. Now his hon. friend wanted the stamps defaced by any attorney, notary, or conveyancer, and if his amendment were accepted the effect would be this, that he (Mr. Hull) might as well take out of this Act all the penalties for not stamping a document within seven days. He thought he went too far the other day in giving this great power under clause 25.

I only wish to say that this is a money Bill, and cannot be amended in another place.

No.

The amendment was negatived.

The Bill was read a third time.

asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling whether, in view of the fact that the Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours were now in Committee of Supply, these estimates Should not first be disposed of before the House resumes in Committee of Supply on the Loan Estimates of Expenditure,

The course adopted in dealing with the ordinary Estimates of Expenditure and the Railway Estimates, respectively, for the period ending the 31st March, 1912, is identical with that which was followed before the recess, when the House dealt with these estimates for the period ending the 31st March, 1911. Under the practice of the old Cape House the annual Budget dealt both with ordinary and Railway Estimates, but since Union a different course has been adopted, two separate Budgets being delivered for the two sets of Estimates and both on the motion to go into Committee of Supply on such Estimates, so that as a matter of fact two Committees of Supply have been set up, but the matter was left to the House to formulate its own procedure to meet the new conditions. At the same time I would suggest for the consideration of the House whether it would not be more convenient in future to have the two Budgets delivered on the same occasion so as to have one debate traversing both sets of Estimates, as otherwise an overlapping is practically unavoidable. Or if this course is deemed undesirable, then I would suggest that Committee of Supply, on the ordinary Estimates should first be set up, and that what was tantamount to a second reading debate should take place on the Railway Estimates on a motion to refer such estimates to Committee of Supply. The sessional order giving precedence to estimates during the evening sittings affects both the ordinary Estimates and the Railway Estimates, it being provided, however, that the Railway Estimates were to have precedence during evening sittings only after the conclusion of the ordinary Estimates, unless the Railway Estimates are under consideration on a particular day at five minutes to six. The Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds were referred to Committee of Supply on the ordinary Estimates on the 6th instant, and these would in the ordinary course under the sessional order in ordinary circumstances ‘ take precedence of the Railway Estimates during evening sittings. With reference to the order paper it is entirely in the hands of Government to arrange the same on Government days, but now that the committee has entered upon the Railway Estimates it would no doubt meet the convenience of members if they could continue the discussion of these Estimates until they are finished, before proceeding with the Loan Estimates. I would therefore suggest that this course be adopted. If the suggestion is approved the Minister could move that Orders No. 5 to 11 stand over until Order No. 12 has been disposed of.

said that he was quite willing to fall in with the Speaker’s suggestion and moved that Orders Nos. 5 to 11 stand over until Order No. 12 had been disposed of.

seconded.

This was agreed to.

asked whether the Minister would give some information now las to the capital?

The reply by the Minister of Railways and Harbours could not be caught in the Press Gallery.

The item was agreed to.

On head 9, miscellaneous expenditure,.

asked what amount that £7,500 was?

said something, but was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Does my hon. friend really want this amount for miscellaneous expenditure?

was understood to say that it had quite escaped his memory what that particular amount was for. (Laughter.)

said the amount set aside for this purpose last year was £165,000. Why had it been reduced?

The reply by the MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS was inaudible in the Press Gallery, with the exception of the hope that it would be a very long time before there would be any necessity to call on the fund.

said some time ago it was decided that East London and Durban should get the same rates to Modderpoort, O.F.S., although that place was 68 miles nearer Durban than East London. Fair play should be carried cut as far as possible in this matter. Then there was the question of the division of the Transvaal traffic between Delagoa Bay and Cape and Natal ports. That agreement was very much abused by Natal people, as being based on wrong principles. Two years had elapsed since the agreement was made, and only once had Natal had more than the 30 per cent. of the traffic, its average being below 30 per cent. Delagoa Bay had more than its fair share of the traffic, while the Cape had less than its proper dues. It was all a matter of adjustment of rates, and if Government did its duty, the matter could be rectified. The Union ports, which wore not paying, should be given their proper share, and the matter should be dealt with on business principles.

said that if business principles were applied, the Transvaal trade would go through its old legitimate channel, which was the Cape ports, and he did not think Durban would see very much of it. If the geographical position argument were applied Delagoa Bay would get the biggest share of the traffic. There were two sides to the question, and the Cape ports had a very strong side, although being modest men, the Cape people did not say very much about it. All the attempts to put the division of the Transvaal traffic on an equal basis had, so far, been rather a lamentable failure. In view of the fact that the Commissioner was going to make the Union ports pay their way, which was an absolutely sound principle, he ought to use an extra effort to see that these ports had their fair share of the trade. (Hear, hear.)

said he would give the question of rates to Modderpoort his attention. He was very glad that Sir Edgar Walton was not going to raise discussion on the relative rights of the different ports, for he (Mr. Sauer) was afraid that that would lead to a very long debate. There was an agreement, and that agreement should be carried out. Shortly after he became Minister of Railways he endeavoured to get a meeting of representatives of the Portuguese Government and other parties to the agreement, but circumstances occurred in Portugual which delayed the meeting, Subsequently they met and came to an agreement, which took effect on January 1 last. The latest return showed that the ports within the Union had increased their share of the traffic. Sufficient time, however, had not elapsed to enable people to change the place of destination of their imports, and he hoped that within a few months the Union ports would obtain that share of the traffic to which they were entitled. If the Union ports did not at an early date get their fair share of the traffic he would call another meeting.

pointed out that the bulk of goods under the intermediate class at present came through the Union ports, but coffee came through Delagoa Bay. Instead of making a reduction on the whole of that class they should raise coffee, and deal with it alone.

pointed out that according to the March returns, the percentages of traffic were: Cape ports, 12.49, instead of 22; Natal ports, 22.66, instead of 30; and Delagoa Bay, 64.85, instead of 55. These figures, he thought, showed that very little improvement was going on even since the last alteration of rates, and therefore, there should be a further adjustment.

asked whether there was a profit or a loss on the Parliamentary restaurant, and if there were a loss, whether it would be met out of the railway revenue or the general revenue?

said he could not give the exact figures, but he might say it was run at a loss, and he did not think it should be met out of the railway revenue. It should come out of general revenue.

said he was in favour of refreshment departments paying interest, depreciation, and a little more.

They do, but not a little more.

went on to refer to the profit made out of the refreshment rooms on the C.S.A.R. According to the Transvaal Auditor’s report, for the year 1909-1910, up to the time of Union, there was a profit of £15,000 on sales amounting to £138,000. He agreed that these catering departments should pay their way, but he was strongly opposed to them being the means of collecting undue profits out of the pockets of the travelling public.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member that the catering departments should not be run at a loss, and that they should not make large profits.

complained of the inconvenience caused to passengers on the Harrismith-Ladysmith line, owing to the dining car being disconnected at Van Reenen.

asked if the Minister would promise to run a dining-car down to Port Elizabeth and round the Eastern Province? He also mentioned the fact that on one occasion he and his hon. friend (Sir Edgar Walton) asked for Colonial biscuits on the train, but could not obtain them. He thought that such a state of affairs should not exist on the South African Railways.

I shall take an early opportunity of bringing that matter before the Board. (Laughter.)

advocated a dining-car on the Rosmead Junction-Stormberg Junction line.

suggested that the railway refreshment rooms should be used for advertising Colonial products. These rooms should be in a position to sell Colonial products, such as butter and cheese.

asked for information as to how many Colonial wine buffets had been opened at the railway stations, and whether those which had been opened had been constructed in the same expensive style as the one at Cape Town?

said that none had been opened since Union. There was a buffet at Cape Town and another at Pont Elizabeth, and he contemplated opening one at East London.

thought a few more buffets for the sale of Colonial wines should be opened.

The item was agreed to.

asked why, when the Government took over the bookstalls, the contract for the supply of oversea periodicals had been given to the Central News Agency without tenders being called for? He was of opinion that the Government should take over this, which was the most profitable part of the business.

said that the contract was only for six months. With reference to a statement made the other day that the prices had been raised at the railway bookstalls, it was true that they had been raised, but it was only for a day, after which the old prices were reverted to. The price of some magazines had been reduced by 25 per cent.

thought the position of the men who had kept the bookstalls previously should be taken into consideration.

said he had given instructions that, as far as possible, the men previously employed at the bookstalls should be reemployed.

asked if the Minister made the other departments of the Government pay for the advertisements they put up on the railways?

remarked that he found) it extremely difficult to get any money out of the other departments. (Laughter.)

suggested that simple signs should be put up at the stations in the Dutch language, instructing people where they could get tickets, refreshments, and so on. The Dutch signs now put up were very often unintelligible to back-country people.

said he did not write the Dutch notices for the railways.

The item was agreed to.

On sub-head No. 5, Sleeper factories, £30,001,

referred to the possibility of increasing the vote under this head, and providing more employment for the unfortunate woodcutters.

said that some attention had been given to the matter.

called attention to certain grievances of the engineers employed on the tug at East London harbour.

asked whether sufficient provision had been made in regard to the money to be spent under these votes for proper engineering supervision? He also asked for information in reference to a recent appointment in connection with the harbours.

referred to grievances of the men on the harbour tugs at Algoa Bay.

urged the need of doing something for the development of Port, St. John, especially in view of the difficulties caused by East Coast fever.

asked whether it was true that uncertificated masters were taking out small steamers for short trips?

asked for information in regard to the work of the Harbour Commission recently appointed. He also asked for particulars in reference to the appointment of an officer in connection with the harbours of the Union. Mr. dagger further inquired whether it was the intention or the Government to appoint an engineer-in-chief who would be concerned with all the harbours of the Union, instead of having an engineer in charge of each harbour?

drew attention to the state of the pier at Knysna harbour, and inquired if a report had been made in regard to the development of Port St. John?

asked whether the Minister had considered putting a tug and a few lighters at Port St. John, which would easen the position there?

advocated harbours for the promotion of the fishing industry, and referred particularly to Hermanus. In 1904 a representative committee of the Cape Parliament had, he said, inquired into the question of harbour facilities at Hermanus, and found that several improvements were necessary so that the harbour could meet the requirements of the fishing industry. The local people had spent money to improve the landing facilities, but although an amount had been voted by the then Government, the money had not been spent, and it was felt that something further had to be done. Dr. Gilchrist’s opinion was that the Agulhas Bank, which was near to Hermanus, was one of the best and richest fishing grounds in the world, but the harbour facilities were so had that the industry was very greatly hampered. Government aid was needed. The roads, too, were very bad, and he would not cease to stand up for the encouragement of this industry.

said that he was somewhat encouraged to see that there were hon. members in the House who, besides himself, took an interest in the fishing industry; and he was encouraged by what the last speaker had said. There were other places, however, which had equal claims, like Kalk Bay, and they must look to the question of harbours for the fishing industry in a manner different from that of the past. It was desirable that bigger boats should be used, and these necessitated adequate fishing harbours. He hoped that the Minister would pay some attention to the matter of the Kalk Bay harbour during the recess; for owing to the building of the railway embankment the harbour had been interfered with, and the fishermen did not have those facilities which they had in the past.

said that if hon. members wanted to speak about the fishing industry they must go to the Provincial Council, because that was the proper place to advocate it.

Harbours?

said that when they had a railway to Hermanus, as he hoped they would have in future, the matter of the harbour would receive attention. The question of the jetty at Knysna would also receive consideration. As to what Mr. Tagger had said, the different harbours of the Union had different methods; and he was surprised at the great differences there were; it being very unsatisfactory from an administrative point of view. They would try to bring about uniformity as far as possible; but competition was so very keen that they had to be very careful, so as not to disturb the relations which at present existed. The Board had given a good deal of attention to the matter, and most of the members of the Board had visited all the harbours of the Union; and one of the chief things would be to make the different harbours self-supporting. As to the appointment of a Harbour Engineer-in-Chief, Government, was very fortunate in having Mr. Tippet as Engineer-in-Chief on the railways, and he doubted whether they could do better than they were doing now to avail themselves of Mr. Tippet’s services. He (Mr. Sauer) endeavoured to get the best possible advice before any fresh schemes were embarked upon. As to the East London men, he hoped to be able to get them on to the fixed establishment. (Hear, hear.)

said that at Port St. John there was a magnificent piece of land suitable for closer settlement, as it was unequalled for fruit growing. It was necessary that means should be provided to establish communication with passing steamers.

said a dredger was sent to Port St. John, but it was found to be unsuitable. He did not think the fact that there was splendid ground available at Port St. John was sufficient justification for an immediate large expenditure. He would not promise that tugs would be sent to Port St. John, because at any moment the bar might be silted up and the tugs be detained in the river.

said if the harbours were made to pay their way, the Government should pay dock dues on the goods landed for it.

presumed that the smaller harbours would not be expected to pay their way, as they should be in the same position as the branch railways were.

supported the development of the fishing industry, and thought a judicious start should be made in this direction by the Government.

hoped that if the harbour dues were made equal it should be borne in mind that the merchants paid the wharfage dues. It was really a waste of time thinking of developing Port St. John until they were prepared to spend a vast amount of money.

On item, cartage services, £55,027,

asked for information in connection with the breeding of horses for the Harbour cartage.

said if there were a loss on the service, the Railway and Harbour Department would bear the loss—not the Treasury. His personal opinion was that the department should not go in for horse-breeding.

On item 14, traffic working, £208,852,

referred to the serious position at East London owing to the block in the traffic.

promised to inquire into the matter.

On item 18, interest on loans and on interest-bearing capital, £357,929,

said that what they paid from general revenue into railways and harbours should be charged against these works, and they should recover interest upon them. He raised the question because he wanted to see that they got their fair dues in this matter.

referred to the wreck of the Lusitania off Cape Point. He said that, knowing the locality, it seemed to him simply a miracle that a ship should strike that rock, and that a single soul should have been saved. He remembered a wreck which occurred at the same place twenty years ago, on which occasion the vessel went to pieces within a quarter of an hour of striking the rock. He had repeatedly urged the necessity of having better safeguards on that part of the coast, and he now repeated the appeal, in the interests of humanity. The question of the Cape Point lighthouse had been reported on by different Commissions, which had found that owing to the great height of the light, it was obscured by fog for a great part of the year. That he (Mr. Runciman) knew to be the case, from personal experience. These Commissions had recommended that the light should be removed from its present position and put lower down. If that had been done at the times these Commissions recommended it, there was no doubt that many lives and much property would have been saved. The whole question of the better lighting of the coast between Cape Town and Cape Point demanded immediate attention. In recent times, hardly a year had passed without one or two wrecks happening on that stretch of coast. The hon. member referred to the wreck of the Maori, and to the finding of the Naval Assessor who sat on the Board of Inquiry, that a light on Slangkop might have averted the disaster. He pointed out that now, under Union, it would not cost the country a, single penny in the way of interest and maintenance to make the provision he asked for, inasmuch as the Natal light dues amounted to £18,000, while the cost of maintaining the whole of our lighthouses was only £15,000, a surplus thus being left of £3,000. He referred to the great body of expert opinion in favour of the better equipment with safeguards of this part of the coast, and urged the Government again, in the interests of humanity, to take immediate action in the matter. It might be said that many of these disasters were due to carelessness. Well, no doubt some of them had been, but on the other hand, many of them were due to accidents which, in the present state of things, could not have been averted. He believed that if the Government undertook the erection of a light at Slangkop and the lowering of the Cape Point light, they could then consider this part of the coast as being fairly lighted. He hoped the urgent need for action would no longer be ignored. (Hear, hear.)

said that, as a member of the Lighthouse Commission of 1906, he would like to support his hon. friend. There was one thing that came out in that Commission, and that was the amount of mist or fog which existed round the coasts of South Africa. There was a good deal of fog about, and he did not think it was right on the part of his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) to mention carelessness of this nature.

Why?

Because there is carelessness in everything. If you follow out that theory we should have no lighthouses at all, and I am sure my right hon. friend is not prepared to go so far as that. It is the duty of every civilised country to provide lights to protect its coasts, notwithstanding the fact that there may be carelessness. One of the recommendations of the Commission (he went on to say) had been supplied in the form of a lighthouse at Agulhas. The Commission also made a very strong recommendation in regard to the Cape Point lighthouse, and that was that the light should be lowered; but that: a light should be placed at Slangkop at the same time. It was the custom now, all the world over, to put lighthouses on the beach, lower down than used to be the case. For many weeks of the year they could not see the light at Cape Point on account of the mists wrapping round the higher parts of the coast. The result of lowering the light would be to restrict the arc of the light, and, therefore, they said that a change of that kind should be accompanied by a new lighthouse at Slangkop. He knew that the Minister had adverse reports as regarded the Slangkop light: but he might mention that the captains of the mail steamers and of the big pessenger steamers were strongly in favour of it, and so also was the present Admiral. If this ship had gone down, and carried with it those 700 souls, they would not have had to wait long for this improvement.

As it happens, the light was perfectly visible.

I saw that statement, but my hon. friend behind (Mr. Runciman) contradicts it.

said he must point out to his hon. friend, with regard to these lighthouses and wrecks, that whenever there was a wreck there was a cry for a fresh lighthouse. They had a ship wrecked within 200 or 300 yards of a lighthouse, on a perfectly clear night on the shore here in Cape Town. Was that carelessness? They had the wreck of the Umhlali. Was that through want of a lighthouse? Then there was the Maori wreck. No; there was carelessness in all those cases. In regard to the present case the light was perfectly visible. They had, two or three testimonies given in the paper of ordinary impartial people, who said they could see the light during the time they were stuck on the rock, and then they came with a cry for a fresh lighthouse As he had said over and over again, the Cape coast was very well lighted, and these lighthouses were now so close together that there was a positive danger sometimes of mistaking one light, for another. The Bellows Rock, on which this steamer was wrecked, was as well known as any danger in the sea. In regard to lowering the light at Cape Point, there would be hundreds of days when it would be obscured by the fog on the sea coast. That was the case over and over again. He had noticed this while living in the Gardens. He had seen a low fog over the sea wall while the hills had been quite clear. If they had a lighthouse above, and one below, he could understand it— one for high fog and one for low fog. There were clever men in the world before his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger).

said his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) was always peculiar when he discussed the question of the lighting of the coast. Proceeding, he alluded to the findings of the Lighthouse Commission and the wreck of the Maori, quoting the view of the Naval Assessor who sat on the Board of Inquiry, that the want of a light at Slangkop was responsible for the Maori going ashore. They found a very strong consensus of opinion in favour of lowering the light at Cape Point, erecting a lighthouse, at Agulhas, and placing a light at Slangkop. The lighthouse at Agulhas had been erected, and he thought, the other reforms should be carried out, so, as to lessen the dangers to which those who travelled by sea were exposed by the inefficient lighting of our coast. Sir Thomas recalled the wreck of a Castle liner, which led to the light being placed on Robben Island.

said he did not think they could have better testimony in connection with this question of lighthouses than the people who had got to navigate ships. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had mentioned that the captains of the mail steamers, the Admiral, and others, who were experts in the matter, held this opinion, and he (Sir Percy) thought they ought to take it very seriously. He pointed out that, as regarded the wreck of the Lusitania, they had the evidence of the Magistrate and others that they could not see the light. He did not know what testimony there was on the other side to the effect that the light was visible. But he thought that a member of that House ran a very considerable risk of damaging the reputation of officers in saying that the light was visible. Then the right hon. gentleman had said that the fog would get right down to the sea level, and therefore it was no safer to put the lighthouse on the level than on the top. If the fog was at sea level, so the ship would be, and so they would not be able to see the lighthouse at the top. But if the fog was high they certainly could see the light if it were lower down. So that they would lose nothing by lowering the lighthouse. It was simply absurd, as Mr. Merriman said, to say that it was the same thing whether the light was high up or low down. They had the testimony of experts, which all pointed one way, and showed how unsuitable the present light was. Even they who lived up country were perfectly familiar with the complaints which had been made. He thought they might take the Union point of view, and urged upon the Government to consult and act upon the best and most expert advice.

read an extract from a report of 1890 which advocated the lighthouse on Cape Point being lowered. They did not, he said, want a lighthouse nearly on the sea level, but about 150 to 200 feet up. The present lighthouse was on a pinnacle 800 feet above the sea, and on a concave cliff which caused the fog to collect much thicker than one would expect. In fact, the fog there was usually worse than, elsewhere, and the light had been obscured last year for 103 days. He knew the locality well, and had seen how easily the light became obscured by fog. Slangkop lighthouse should be built as a preliminary to the light at Cape Point being flowered. The hon. member went on to deal with the dangers of the coast, and said that as to Mr. Merriman’s statement that if lighthouses were built certain captains would only come in and seek for them—well, if that were carried to its logical conclusion, no lighthouses at all should be built. He asked whether the Lighthouse Commission’s recommendation with regard to the light at. Port Nolloth would be attended to, seeing that a wreck had recently taken place in that vicinity?

bore out what Mr. Runciman had said as to the lighthouse at Cape Point being often obscured. On one occasion, he said, when he was on a ship off Cape Point, although the night was clear and the ship was only five miles off the light, it could not be seen. There was a bank of fog just off the light. A ship coming from England, unless she picked up Paternoster, had no sight of land, and a mailboat generally had to make for Table Bay in the night. If she could not pick up Paternoster, her position was a very dangerous one; and in case of fog, if she had to drift, she might easily get ashore, owing to the treacherous currents which prevailed. It was the duty of the Government to put Table Bay in a safe condition for steamers entering and leaving. Any other port in the world would be better equipped in the way of guiding lights or signals for every dangerous point. Unless something were done there would be a big wreck, with a heavy loss of life.

said he entirely agreed with previous speakers Lighthouse keepers, he proceeded, should be trained to use the Morse system of signals. The late Postmaster-General was very willing to send an official to train the lighthouse men in this matter. Had that been done, the Lusitania might have been able to obtain assistance more quickly, though he gave the Simon’s Town people all credit for the ready succour they gave. (Cheers). Fogs, continued the hon. member, were very deceptive. He agreed that it was necessary to have lights at Cape Point and Slangkop. It was not because one man made an error of judgment that they should condemn lighthouses. (Cheers.) It was all very well for members sitting comfortably in Parliament to say lighthouses were not of much use, but they should consider the sailors, who were very glad to see those lights. (Cheers.) At the same time, he wished to say that the lights on the Cape coast had been considerably improved. The Lighthouse Superintendent was a most capable officer and deserved a higher salary than £380.

said Mr. Struben had appealed to their human sympathy. That was quite unnecessary, for he was sure everyone was anxious to do everything to prevent the unhappy disasters we had from time to time. (Hear, hear). The whole question was whether it was necessary to build more lighthouses, and, if so, where? He agreed with Mr. Jagger that it was the duty of the community to give sufficient lights along the coast to protect ships, and it was also to our interest to do so. The question was whether it was necessary to do anything more at or near the place where the recent disaster took place. During the past few years he had heard a great deal of discussion on this matter, and several Commissions had been appointed, and the members of the last Commission had pressed very strongly that the recommendations made by them should be carried out. But there was a great diversity of opinion whether it would be advisable to build another lighthouse at Slangkop. With all due deference to hon. members who had spoken that afternoon, he had had the opinions of gentlemen who in that respect were far more qualified than hon. members were. He had had the opinion of a very distinguished British Admiral, who was now occupying a very high position, and he had also had the opinion of the captain of the survey ship, whose business it was to see and to know where lighthouses should be erected. The opinions of these gentlemen were entirely different from those of the laymen who sat opposite. On a question of that kind he much preferred to take the opinion of the distinguished Admiral and the captain of the survey ship.

Do they recommend any other place?

I am telling you the opinions I have had. I have only mentioned that to show the difficulties of the position. If we do anything, for goodness’ sake, don’t let us build an unnecessary lighthouse, and, above all, not at a place which would rather occasion than prevent wrecks. What I shall do is this. We are very anxious that the lighting should be as satisfactory as possible. I shall proceed—not by way of a Commission—to get sufficient competent opinion and then, next session, I will indicate to the House, and ask it for the necessary authority to build. (Hear, hear).

asked whether the Government had taken any official notice of the prompt and courageous conduct of the officers and men of His Majesty’s Navy, and also of the Resident Magistrate of Simon’s Town and others, who went to the rescue of the passengers and crew of the Lusitania?

said that after it came to his notice that these services had been rendered so efficiently and courageously, he took the opportunity of directing that a letter should be written expressing the Government’s high appreciation.

The Railway Estimates were reported without amendment. The Chairman will bring up a report to-morrow.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on Co-operative Wineries.

Consideration of the report was set down for Monday.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to complete the Law Courts at Bloemfontein? With the expenditure of very little money, they could be made more in harmony with the outside,

said that some time since when he addressed the House in reference to the Loan. Bill, he then urged that a couple of hundred thousand pounds should be put down on this vote to make provision for new school buildings. His hon. friend then accused him of being extravagant. He thought that no more ridiculous charge could have been brought forward. Because they urged that some provision should be made for schools which were in some cases in this Province wood and iron buildings— and in other cases School Boards could not enforce compulsory attendance because of the lack of accommodation—he thought his hon. friend would admit there was no justification for the charge. He thought his hon. friend had sanctioned a piece of extravagance which appeared on this paper, the like of which had not been seen before in this country, and that was the Union buildings. (Cries of “Oh!”) Hon. members said “Oh.” This was the first time this matter had been formally brought before the House. This Parliament had been in session for five months now, and now, when hon. members were all waiting to get away to their homes, this matter was brought before them. Any information given to the House, and any discussion which had arisen, had had to be dragged out of the Government by the Opposition. They were now asked to sanction this expenditure of £1,030,000 for the erection of the Union buildings. £210,000 had already been spent on this building up to March 31, 1911. They were asked now to sanction the sum of £535,000, which had to be charged this year, and to be provided for in this loan. Then there was a further sum of £551,000, which would come on later. In addition to this, there was the sum of £43,000, which was spent by the Transvaal Government prior to Union, making a total of £1,130,000 He had already dealt with the sum that had been spent without the authority of Parliament. What he was dealing with now was the building itself. From the information they could get, and it was very much to be regretted that the Government did not give them the Select Committee which he had asked for the other day, hut from what he could gather, the £1,000,000 was not going to cover the cost. There would be contingencies, excavations, and other items, which would bring up the total to a million and a half. However, he preferred to take the figures as they were stated. First, he would like to call attention to the fact that though there was going to be an expenditure of a million of money, the Government did not think of taking the trouble to call for competitive designs. He had never heard of such a thing before. When the London County Council were going to erect their big building, they called for competitive designs, and got the best designs to be obtained in the United Kingdom and Europe. Here the Union Government put it all into the hands of one man. That was not the proper way of spending the people’s money. And he thought he could say they had not got the best value for that money, or the best designs. He had made a rough guess that this building would hold 1,000 clerks, and his hon. friend said it would hold 1,500 clerks. Since then he had had the advantage of seeing the report from an architect in the Transvaal, and he had had the figures checked by an architect in this city, and his (Mr. Jagger’s) contention was that these buildings would only hold 796 clerks. There was no room for more than that number. Taking an ordinary computation, it would only hold 796. He wanted to point out, further, that the corridor space in this building was 70 per cent, more than it should be in a building of this character, and, consequently, the cost per clerk was going to be—on the basis of 796—not £1,000, but £1,420 per clerk. He wanted to point out in reference to this matter that they might have had a building to hold 1,000 clerks, to cost not £1,130,000, but for something like £350,000. He would repeat it, and would show them how he arrived at the figures. That would have put up a building from good architectural designs to hold 1,000 clerks, and there by they would have saved £780,000.

said that this was the fifth time the hon. member had raised this question, and he had brought forward little that was new. The hon. member started by saying he (Mr. Hull) had accused him and others of extravagance for demanding more money for school buildings. Well, he wanted to repudiate that, and to say that he had never said he wanted to starve school buildings. On the contrary, he thought the policy of the Government had shown clearly that, so far from stinting money for school buildings, they had been most generous. Now the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had said also that an architect in the Transvaal had been in communication with him, and had placed certain statements before him, which he regarded as facts. The first criticism he had made of the late Transvaal Government was that they had not invited competitive designs for the buildings. Well, surely it had occurred to the hon. member that, in undertaking a job of this kind, it was impossible, from the very nature of the case, to invite competitive designs? Surely the hon. member knew, from his experience, that all over the world Governments and public authorities had gone to architects of repute and standing—men whom they knew to he specially qualified in the particular class of work—‘and had asked them to draw up designs? That was what was done in this case. It was well known that when Mr. Baker, an architect of prominence, was selected by the Government, a number of the other architects felt very sore about it, and criticised the action of the Government very strongly. Well, this particular architect to whom his hon. friend had referred had told his hon. friend that the buildings, instead of costing £1,130,000, would cost nearly a million and a half, the extra sum being for excavations, furniture, and so on. Now, he (Mr. Hull) wanted to assure the hon. member that this sum of £1,130,000 included every possible kind of expense. The tender for the Western and Eastern block was £622,500, and for the central building — the amphitheatre — it was £256,000. These figures included an allowance of £34,000 for excavations, as well as £50,000 for furniture, and ample allowances for heating apparatus, lifts, fire alarms, electric bells, architects’ fees, a road, tram lines up to the buildings, tree-planting, and every conceivable kind of expense which could be foreseen. The hon. member’s information was, therefore, quite incorrect. Well, that showed the committee how extravagant the hon. member’s informant was in regard to his figures. Then the hon. member said that the same correspondent told him that the buildings ought not to have cost more than £350,000. He (Mr. Hull) wondered if this was the architect who said that the building, when completed, would slip down because of the geological formation? (Laughter.)

said that the point was not whether the building could have been put up for £350,000, but whether this country could afford such an extravagant building as this at Pretoria? There were several places which needed railways, and he thought these railways should have been built, instead of putting the money into such a building at Pretoria.

said he felt that he would not be doing his duty as a representative of the people if he did not rise and say that he entirely agreed with what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had said. He was surprised at the Treasurer-General seeming to treat this matter with a light-heartedness which, when they were asked to vote more than a million of money, was net seemly. He could not understand his hon. friend treating this as a joke, and trying to cry down anybody who wished to have the matter investigated. All the information they had now got consisted in the few statements made by the Treasurer-General to-day, which they had had no opportunity whatever of checking or looking into. When the matter was before them the other day, he said it was too much money to spend on housing a thousand clerks. The Minister of the Interior then said that it was nearer 1,500. Anybody who went and looked at the plans, and inquired into the floor space, could see that the number of clerks was between 700 and 800, or very little more than half what the Minister, who had encouraged them to spend this money, said could be accommodated. They had not got any definito information as to the requirements which they were to fulfill. They were told that it was to be-a monument.

What I say is, that this Government must be careful that it is not a monument of extravagance and folly. (Hear, hear.) Is it realised by hon. members upon these benches, who are sitting here in a light after-dinner mood, voting away a million of the taxpayers’ money, that it is one of the largest buildings in the whole world that we have planned out—planned out for a little handful of people, with all our frightful responsibilities upon us, and in a country with its enormous land to be developed —and that we are going to set up to house a few Civil Servants one of the largest buildings in the world—(hear, hear)—in a most unsuitable place, out of the business part of the capital? First thoughts were best. What evil Genlus it was that led them to change when £350,000 would have put up a magnificent building, which would have been suitable for the purpose and effectual, what evil Genlus prompted them, I know not. It was not the Genlus of economy. It was the Genlus of megalomania and display. Proceeding, he said that we could not, in a poor country like this, afford luxuries of that kind. This expenditure was likely to be a million and a half before they had finished. They had one of the largest buildings in the world, which, instead of accommodating 1,500 clerks, would accommodate some 800, with its corridors, garages, dining-rooms, libraries—a magnificent display, fit, indeed, for a building which was the second largest building in the world, which was now, absit omen, in ruins—the palace of Diocletian, at Spalato. We were perfecting a bureaucracy in this country. He hoped that we some day, or those who came after us, would not go about the ruins of this building and wonder at the supreme folly of those who voted money for a purpose of this kind. He protested against this expenditure, and would continue to protest against this expenditure as long as he sat in that House.

said he would like to ask the right hon. gentleman what be proposed? The Government did not come to that House as ask the House to approve of a step they had taken. They were here in the position of the Union Parliament. The Union Parliament had to face the contract that was handed over to the Union Government. What were they to do? (A VOICE: “Break it.”) It was no use them making fiery statements. Personally, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman that the provision was extravagant. What was the use of thrashing a dead horse when they knew that they had got to carry out the contract that had been handed over to the Union? It was handed over to the Union, and the Union had to take over the responsibility and had got to meet it. Supposing the House refused to vote this sum, what would happen? Could not the contractors bring an action against the Government, and compel them to carry out their contract? (Ministerial cheers.) As the thing stood, they had got to take it, and he could not see the object of continuing the discussion. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that if they asked him what he would do, he would tell them. The contracts provided for a cessation of the contract. Of course, the work that was done would have to be measured and paid for, and no doubt, if they did not decide to go on with it, they would have had to pay a penalty. They could then erect a building and save hundreds of thousands of pounds. He considered it a piece of folly to go on with this building. Apart from that, allow him to tell the hon. gentleman (Sir E. Walton) that now, when for the first time they were asked to vote money for the buildings, was the time to protest against it, and to say that they were not accomplices in this thing, and that they had no part or lot in it. They took the earliest possible opportunity they had, and asked the Government to have an inquiry into this matter. No man would have acted in his own private affairs as the Government had acted in the matter.

said that he hoped that that would be the last time that matter would be before them; but he would not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not protest, against that extravagant expenditure. He did not ascribe any ulterior motives to those who had initiated it. He thought that they had done so in good faith; hut from his point of view they had committed a mistake. If that money had been spent in the Cape Province he would have protested even more—it was an absolute and unwarranted waste of public money, when the country was crying out for development of all kinds, for which they did not have the money. (Opposition cheers.)

said it was a very curious thing that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) had not replied to any point he had made, except to say that that was the fourth time that matter had been raised. They could not let that matter pass without protest, and it was only their duty to protest; he was only sorry he could not put a stop to it and reduce it. (Ministerial dissent.) It was the duty of any Government or any body administering public funds, to get the best possible value out of that public money; and how could they get the best possible value unless they called for designs? To say that it was not possible to call for designs was absurd. They had the place laid out, and it was known that the buildings were to be constructed, and no doubt scores of architects were ready to submit designs. His hon. friend had not answered at all as to the question of cheaper designs, so that he stood condemned out of his own mouth.

said that he regretted the tone of that discussion. It seemed that they could not talk about Pretoria without getting warm. He wanted to remain calm, and did not want to lose his head. (Laughter) Mr. Jagger talked about the waste of public money in that regard; and he must disagree with him. The money had been spent in the interests of the whole of the Union; and if £4,000,000 had been spent at Cape Town, the hon. member would not have raised all that pother about the matter. As to the designs of those buildings, the technical advisers had had the matter in hand, and it was under the supervision of the Public Works Department of the Transvaal. What he objected to was that his hon. friend had raised that question on so many occasions in such a heated manner. Even admitting for the moment that the Government had been wrong at the outset; still the fact remained that these administrative buildings would have had to be constructed in Pretoria. If a Select Committee had, as had been proposed on a previous occasion, been appointed to go into the whole matter, would it have made the position any better? Would it not have broken down instead of building up? Mr. Merriman had let the oat out of the bag when he said that the contracts should be annulled and another contract for a less amount should be entered into. What would have happened in South Africa if such a thing had been done? It was unfair to move for a Select Committee on the pretext that a mere inquiry was wanted, whereas the real object was to upset existing arrangements. If the Cape taxpayer had had to bear additional burdens as a result of the construction of these buildings, there would have been something in what Mr. Jagger had said, but what were the facts? There was no longer an income tax in the Cape, but if they had not had Union and Mr. Merriman had still been at the head of affairs there, £500,000 would have been levied. A sum of £100,000 had been returned to the officials, and the remission of the income tax meant £500,000, while the reduction of railway rates in the Cape was responsible for another £400,000. Could they say that with a total relief of £800,000 per annum they were not better off under Union? Were they not pleased that there was less taxation? No one had raised any objection to that, and as far as he was concerned, he had been glad to be able to assist the Cape. In conclusion, he said that the Union buildings were there, and they could not pull them down. He regretted that Mr. Merriman and Mr. Jagger had not accepted matters in the proper spirit. The figures quoted were unreliable, and it was a mistake to work against the general good feeling by pitting the Northern parts of the Union against the South.

said that he was sorry that that discussion had assumed such a character, but it was impossible to sit in the House and hear such an extraordinary speech as that of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and not reply. On a previous occasion he had given them another reason why they should not discuss that question—that anybody who did so tried to break down the honourable understanding which had been arrived at that there should be an administrative and a legislative capital. But now his right hon. friend gave other reasons, and said that the taxpayers of the Cape were never so well off as under Union He could tell his right hon. friend that there would have been as much objection to spending two millions in the Gape. When the Cape Government had started with the erection of a very large public building in the Province—the Law Courts—the whole amount Parliament was asked for was only £187,000. The House had been five months in session before a measure was put before them, in the proper and constitutional manner, to vote money and carry out this contract, which had been entered into by the Government in an improper and unconstitutional manner. That was the gravamen of the charge. There was no desire to prevent the Government erecting at Pretoria buildings of a suitable character in which to house the Civil Servants, but it was because they objected to the unconstitutional action of the Government that they protested as they did. He believed that a large number of people who sat behind the Prime Minister, and, indeed, all the people who had the best interests of the Transvaal and of Pretoria at heart, would recognise that they could have spent this money at Pretoria in a better way if they had spent less on the Union buildings, and had used the balance for other public buiudings, which would be useful and, perhaps, reproductive. He wanted at once to remove the impression that there had been criticism on that side of the House in connection with this extravagance because the money was being spent at Pretoria. They had no sort of objection to equipping Pretoria with the buildings necessary for the administrative capital. Their criticism was that the action of the Government was unconstitutional, and that it was not in the best interests of the Union that so much money should have been spent—not in the Transvaal or Pretoria—but on this particular work, which they considered to be of an extravagant character, having regard to the smallness of the population and the large amount of development the Union was crying out for. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the spirit of the debate could not but be harmful—(cheers)—and it was only fair that those whose interest in the matter was a more indirect one than that of Transvaal Ministers should draw attention to that fact. The previous speaker had once more referred to the inception of the scheme, but he wished to remind the House that on several occasions protests, both violent and unfair, had been entered against that inception. By protesting too much, hon. members were only exposing the weakness of their case. It was not so much a question of protesting merely, however— what hon. members really wanted was to cancel the contract, stop building and repudiate their liabilities. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been exceedingly unjust to the Transvaal Ministers and the Transvaal as a country. The scheme was inaugurated with the knowledge of the Transvaal Opposition, many members of which were present in the House. They did not protest at the time, and he appealed to the hon. member for Pretoria East to state whether the Transvaal Parliament would not have sanctioned the construction of the buildings, independent of party. The Union should now take up the position that, the Transvaal having desired to erect the buildings, the scheme should be sanctioned by South Africa as a whole. The Prime Minister had not made any unjust accusations. The right hon. gentleman was quite correct. The Transvaal was a young, wealthy, progressive country. What might have been a criminal procedure on the part of Cape Colony was not necessarily criminal in another colony with money at its disposal, but without works of art in which it could take a legitimate pride. The Transvaal refused to be behindhand, and wished to be in a position of being able to bear comparison with other parts of the Union. A building of some sort was required, and the Transvaal decided it would erect a monumental edifice. Even if two millions had been earmarked for this object, hon. members would hardly have been entitled to cavil at the expenditure. Criticism would lead to serious results, because the people of the Transvaal would begin to think that jealousy was the motive. The Cape had no right to level reproaches at the Transvaal. It could not maintain that the buildings had to come out of Cape funds. Of course, the Union had a perfect right to decide about going on with the works in one way or another, but in view of the fact that the Transvaal could easily have completed the buildings from its own resources, it would look extremely had if Parliament now proved obstreperous. If he (the speaker) had had to vote on the matter as it originally stood in his capacity as a Minister of the Union, he would not have voted for the scheme; he supposed the Prime Minister would not have done so either, but it would not do to offend a Province which, for the present, had provided the Union with ample funds. It was now only a question of carrying on a scheme according to the wishes of those who initiated it, and that being so, they should not raise a finger against the buildings. If they voted against the continuance of the work, they might pride themselves on having been economical, but they would never he able to boast of having done a good day’s work in the interests of South Africa as a whole. (Hear, hear.)

said he was bound to say something on this matter, because on the last occasion when the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) moved for a Select Committee, he (the speaker) had the assurance that it was not intended; to stop the buildings. To-night the idea was to out down the buildings, and he was sorry that that statement had, been made in the heat of the debate, because he wished to make it perfectly clear that he should not have voted for the Select Committee if that had been hinted at. Now he believed that a Select Committee should have been appointed. It would have set at rest all this talk, and it was his firm conviction it would have been for the credit of the Transvaal to have cleared up all this talk and mystery. He would like to have the privilege of saying a word or two in self-defence. He could not accept the responsibility put upon bim by the Minister of Justice. He did not think the Minister (General Hertzog) had realised what was said by his hon. friend the member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) on behalf of the Opposition in the Transvaal. It had already been explained, but he wished to say that they did not know the full extent. When the Union was discussed, if there was one place where Union seemed to be hopeless, it was the Transvaal. There was the great difficulty of the settlement of the capital, but they agreed to it, although he did not know whether they were wise in agreeing to it. He had always hoped to get away from provincial difficulties. He could assure hon. members who represented the Cape Province that the first thing told to them (the Transvaalers) was that the Cape was bankrupt. Now nothing would have been a more popular than that if they had given way to that sentiment, but they did not do that. It was perfectly well known that at the first meeting in Pretoria he (Sir Percy) said that the Cape was not bankrupt; that it had splendid prospects; and every day one saw these prospects being realised. Now, they had to realise the atmosphere in which this thing was done. All they (the Transvaalers) had got was the half capital; but they had no buildings, and they had no security. In Cape Town, however, they had all the Parliament buildings, and they (the Transvaalers) wanted—he was not now talking about the spending of money—a decisive guarantee of the settlement of Union. This was done, and it did settle the doubts about the capital to a large extent. They had to remember that the people said at that time it was a very little thing talking only about money —it was a very little thing and as they saw, the funds that were handed over by the Transvaal were very considerable for all the criticism that had been made. One item was the profits tax, which amounted to a million sterling, and they said: “Try and keep it for the Transvaal; keep it for provincial expenditure.” But they put it all into the pool, land they had got it today. Now, he did not say that all these things justified any unconstitutional act, but he would ask lion, members to have done with it now, because how could they break the contract, and also good faith? He had supported his hon. friend (Mr. dagger) in his stand for constitutional government, and he hoped he would always support him on these lines, but let them have done with it now, because it would be badly misunderstood in other parts. It would look like a provincial attack, an attack upon the settlement effected by Union. He would like to see this matter settled once and for all for the peace of South Africa, and for the purpose of getting away from the provincial divisions which were arising.

said that one of the points raised during the debate had reference to how many clerks would be accommodated in the Union buildings. It had been asserted by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) that the buildings would not accommodate more than 700 or 800 clerks. As the result of inquiry, he had been informed that if they took 100 pubic feet for each clerk, instead of the usual. 90 cubic feet, the buildings would accommodate more than 1,500 clerks, or double the number mentioned that night. As to the question of cost, he was satisfied, from inquiries made, that a very liberal allowance had been made for all conceivable extras, and he had the assurance of his department and responsible people that the amount put down—£1,130,000—would not be exceeded. It had been said that the buildings would cost £1,500,000, but that figure was altogether wrong. He agreed with the last speaker that they should not stop the work. They had spent over £200,000; they had entered into a contract for over a million, and to suggest stopping the work now was one of the greatest absurdities he had ever heard. He hoped Parliament would not be so foolish or injudicious as to adopt the suggestion.

said he would like to point out that the Minister was giving the clerks very short measure—100 cubic feet each.

Yards. (Laughter.)

asked the Minister a question about the progress of the Law Courts in Cape Town.

replied that good progress was being made, and that, according to contract, the buildings would be completed in November, 1913. He did not think it would take any longer, and possibly it would be furnished before that time. The library at Pretoria had been started, he thought. Replying to an interjection by Sir E. H. Walton (Port Elizabeth, Central), the Minister of Public Works said that the amount of £84,900 had been paid out for the House of Parliament, There was about £1,000 asked for the alterations to be made during the recess.

Vote B was agreed to.

asked if the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs intended making any telephone connection with Moorreesburg? He was told that there was connection with Malmesbury, but it did not seem to be very satisfactory. If had to go through Bellville, and the line was very often blocked.

asked if the Minister was going to bring down the price of telephone connections? The price charged in Natal and the Transvaal was very much cheaper. Many people in the Cape would not be connected on account of the price.

asked whether two telephone connections in the Western Free State, for which the people had long been clamouring, would be made?

said nothing had been placed on the Estimates for these lines.

asked whether the question had been as much as inquired into? Koffyfontein should be connected with Kimberley via Jacobsdal.

said that there were telegraph lines in the Western districts of the Free State, but that, before any further town connections were made, the country districts should be assisted.

said the hon. member was selfish. (Laughter.) What he (the speaker) was asking for did not exclude anyone else from the benefits of telephonic communication. He had himself urged the claims of country connections.

said the hon. member had misunderstood him. Living as he did in a town, he (Mr. Cronje) could telegraph to his heart’s content, though there was no direct telephone connection between Winburg and Bloemfontein. At the same time, he was not asking for that connection, because he realised that the country districts should: be assisted first of all.

advocated a telephone connection for Hubertina. (Cheers and laughter.)

said that telephone changes in the Cape had been considerably reduced. The tariff would be made uniform throughout the Union. The department would make inquiries in connection with the lines advocated in the Western Free State.

asked whether Hubertina would be connected? (Loud laughter.)

said that he was not aware there was such a place—(laughter)—but that he had made a note of the request.

asked for a reply to the question he asked the other night.

said, in answer to Mr. Jagger, that no special provision had been made for telephone communication with Moorreesburg. The matter dealt with by Mr. Clayton was being inquired into. With regard to the telephone charges, the intention was to make them uniform throughout the Union as soon as possible. The question of telephone extensions would be considered by the authorities.

The vote was agreed to.

said he had understood when the Prime Minister introduced his Dipping Tanks Bill that he contemplated the erection of a considerable number of tanks. Well, he thought the provision here of £45,000 was very small.

said that under other Acts in the old colonies other sums amounting to £17,000 were provided, which would be available for the advances for dipping tanks.

asked if the Prime Minister would now give the House an indication of the policy of the Government in connection with East Coast fever? Now that the Diseases of Stock Bill had been passed giving the Government certain powers in regard to compulsory dipping, what was proposed to be done with reference to those Border districts which had petitioned, through the Divisional Councils, for compulsory dipping to be brought into operation? Those districts were anxious that his right hon. friend should make some public statement as to what was the policy, now that he had got his Stock Diseases Act, that he proposed to adopt.

said the difficulty hither to had been that the different colonies had had different systems of combating the disease. It was only in the Transvaal that they had been successful. At present the Transvaal method was being introduced in practically the whole of the Union, and in Natal things had improved very much. The Government were intent on preserving the cattle wherever possible. They only destroyed animals where there was no other way open to them. If hon. members were labouring under any other impression, he could assure them that they were wrong. In the Transvaal the natives had co-operated, and in consequence it had been found possible to push back the disease a considerable distance without any cattle being destroyed, except in isolated places. The Government were in favour of dipping in order to arrest the progress of the disease. Wherever it showed, itself a fence was constructed, and a 15 months’ quarantine was introduced. It had been proved beyond cavil that that system answered very well. Dipping was excellent, though in the Transvaal they had fought their battles without it. If they dipped once every five days it would be efficacious, but dipping every ten days was quite useless. The policy of dipping was to be commended, because it was directed not merely against East Coast fever but against ticks generally, and ticks were the farmer’s most deadly enemies. Even though £1,000,000 were spent he agreed with the hon. member for Pretoria East that the money would not be wasted. The Government having done its share, the only thing required now was the hearty co-operation of every cattle farmer. He would have preferred visiting the Kei River to leaving for England at this juncture. If the Divisional Councils there asked for compulsory dipping to be introduced, he was prepared to proclaim it. People along the Border should not delay another moment in constructing dips, lest tick fever invaded the Cape Province proper from the Transkei. Meanwhile all whites should assist the Government by impressing upon the natives the fact that wherever cattle were killed that course was absolutely necessary, because if it were not, Government would not resort to it. If that policy had been adopted at once, the Transkei natives would not have lost 15,000 head of cattle. At present the disease was here, there, and everywhere, and it was almost useless shooting cattle, because East Coast fever would infect all the cattle in the country unless they built dips at once. In winter, fortunately, the ticks were not particularly active, and if they started the construction of dipping tanks at once, they would find, when spring came, that the expense incurred would be made good in many ways. Sprays were inferior to dipping tanks, because they were subject to wear and tear, and would have to be replaced after a time, whereas tanks were a permanent improvement on a farm. Even if Government were to find that its policy had led to misunderstandings in the Transkei and had to be relinquished there, it would be continued, in other parts of South Africa. Concerning Mr. Boshof’s cattle in the district of Waterberg, he would point out that in the Transvaal £5 or more might have to be paid for every animal killed, according to valuation. Government had decided to pay no more than £4 a head, but Mr. Bosboff’s cattle had been valued at£10 each The owner refused to accept Hess, and he (the speaker) had consequently caused the farm to be quarantined. The case of Struben had been mentioned, but Mr. Struben had unlawfully shifted cattle across the Border after he himself had been agitating against practices of that kind. At the time, he (General Botha) was at Kokstad, and he did not know who Mr. Struben was, but when the news came to him he ordered the cattle to be killed immediately, as always happened in the Transvaal when people trekked about with cattle without a permit. Three months afterwards, when it was too late for the shooting to be of any practical use, he found that his order had not been obeyed and that the cattle were still alive. The Court then correctly decided that the Government were not entitled to shoot the cattle, though recognising that the original order given by him had been a just one, and should have been carried out without delay. He would be glad to show the hon. member for Pretoria East all documents bearing on the matter. Government quite realised that it was helpless without the public’s assistance, and they should take timely measures to fight the disease.

said they supported entirely the policy laid down by the Prime Minister, who had stated that the public must really do something for themselves and must not wait for the district in which they lived to foe infected before they moved and then call out to Government for assistance. They entirely agreed with the Prime Minister (proceeded Colonel Crewe), but their trouble was that in those districts where the people said they were prepared to help themselves, the greatest difficulty was experienced in getting the Government to move. Would Government put compulsory dipping into operation in the Komgha district, where the people were anxious for that step to foe taken?

Yes, straight away.

said ‘that in the Transkei the Prime Minister would have the absolute support of the European population, and it was pleasant to see that the natives were supporting the Government. (Hear, hear.) The Government had now given the assurance that wherever it could, it would put the compulsory dipping of cattle into force in non-infected districts in the neighbourhood of the Transkei, and that was all they asked.

asked whether the Prime Minister was prepared to call on the stock inspectors of Natal for a report as to the possibility of eradicating the tick in Natal by compulsory dipping.? Unless the tick could be eradicated he was afraid that Natal farmers would not be able to make a success of stock-farming.

said he had been glad to hear the speech of the Prime Minister and to know that the Government had come to the conclusion that something more was necessary than even what was done in the Transvaal. He did not mean to say that the people of the Transkei or himself wanted shooting to be done away with absolutely, but he was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister say he was not going to shoot at all in the Transkei, because he thought it was a good remedy in certain cases. He hoped he would not carry that out absolutely. With regard to the dipping, he rejoiced that a Bill was being passed to provide dipping tanks. He would like to draw attention to the fact that the Native Council had carried a resolution to ask for a loan from the Government, and he hoped it would be granted them. He had it that they were going to ask for £40,000. They were determined to put up sufficient tanks to dip all the cattle in the Transkei. He was not so pessimistic as the Hon. the Prime Minister about stopping the disease in the Transkei, and he believed that by carrying out dipping they would stop it. He wanted to draw attention to the necessity for having dipping supervisors. They could not expect the natives to attend to the dips, and therefore they should have men to see that it was carried out in a proper manner.

asked what the item £20,000 for land settlement in the Cape of Good Hope was going to be spent on.

hoped that assistance would be given to persons in towns and villages who desired to do so, to return to the land.

endorsed what the hon. member had said. He advocated irrigation, and reminded the Minister of his calculation to the effect that the Transvaal was having £52,000 less spent on it than was intended on 31st May, 1010.

said that he had hoped to ask for a larger amount for that deserving purpose, but it was the intention of the Government to have investigations made first, so that they could lay definite proposals before the House next year. In regard to the item of £20,000 for land settlement in the Cape, this was the Government’s contribution towards the labour colonies, under Act 10 of1909. The £52,000 would be spent in the Transvaal in the long run: but after due inquiry. The money would be spent under different (headings, and there was nothing wrong.

asked if the Government had had any applications in the Cape in regard to the £20,000?

said that they had had no actual applications, but information had been asked for in two cases.

The vote was verbally amended, and agreed to.

wanted to know why the Government had stopped work at the Buchuberg Irrigation Scheme, on which over £7,000 had been spent, and whether work would be restarted? The people of the neighbourhood had looked forward eagerly to the completion of that work.

said that he would take into consideration whether the work could be proceeded with later. It would not pay to finish it on the basis originally adopted.

asked the Minister if he intended to spend the amount of £120,000 on the purchase of land for new irrigation works?

in reply to Mr. Steytler, said that with regard to the Odendaal scheme, if ever the Government had been liberal, it had in regard to that scheme: but whether he had to deal with a church or not, he must go on business principles. He would not only stick to his contract, but act sympathetically. In regard to the £120,000. this was the amount to be included in the loan, but there was no idea of spending it without Parliamentary sanction. There were several schemes not yet mature enough to be laid before Parliament. They however, wanted to be ready when they came for Parliamentary sanction.

In reply to General L. A. S. LEMMER (Marico).

said that investigations were being made in regard to irrigation schemes in the Marico district.

said that he never saw engineers making investigations with regard to irrigation schemes in the North-eastern portions of the Cape Province.

said that there were many engineers, and a large staff at work in the Eastern Province. He wondered that the hon. member did not know of it.

replied that there were many desirable places where no investigations had been made in the North-east, though engineers had been in the South-eastern districts.

said he understood Mir. Fischer to say that none of this sum of £120,000 for the purchase of land could be spent until Parliamentary sanction had been received.

replied that larger amounts would have to come before Parliament. There were certain schemes in the Transvaal, for which Parliamentary sanction would not be required, but the larger amounts would need Parliamentary sanction.

did not think that was satisfactory. The House should know what land was purchased.

said there were certain lands for the purchase of which options had been obtained, but the purchases would not be complete without. Parliamentary sanction. The main portion of the thing would have to came before Parliament.

said it was really a very unsatisfactory position, as the House did not know where it was. The Minister said he might, or he might not have to come to the House for its sanction.

said he could not tell the House what was going to be spent until Government had decided upon the schemes before it. Meanwhile, provision would have to be made in order to get options over certain land, although it might not be necessary to complete the purchases. The money would not be spent without the authority of Parliament.

thought more should be done in the way of bringing water into the Orange Free State.

said he was informed that the work could be done much more cheaply by private people than by Government.

said that he missed entirely all provision for the Agricultural College at Pretoria, and he wished to know where they were going to get the money from. He believed that the sum of £100,000 was voted by the Transvaal Parliament. His friends in Pretoria, in fact, the whole community, wanted to know when the College was to be commenced. Of course, he knew that they had not got the money, and he wanted to know if any portion of it was dependent upon the repayment of repatriation debts?

replied that it would not be possible to get hold of the £100,000 until the repatriation payments to that amount had been collected. He added that it would require considerably more than £100,000 to complete the building.

asked, in reference to the additional loan to the South African College for new buildings for anatomy, whether the Government intended to go on with the Anatomy Rill?

replied in the affirmative.

in reply to Mr. Heatlie, said that but for the pressure of business, the Government would have introduced a Bill to bring about uniformity in regard to land banks in the Union.

said that much money seemed to be lent to farmers, but it was difficult to discover who got the money, as far is the free State was concerned. Many people whom the knew were unsuccessful in their applications, and had given up hope.

said that from the date of Union up to the 14th March £425,000 had been advanced. Surely, that was not a trifle?

The vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.

moved the second reading of the Anatomy Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage to-morrow.