intimated that the House would proceed to the election of Speaker.

said he was not prepared to go on with the election of Speaker. He moved, as an unopposed motion, seconded by the MINISTER OF RAILWAYS: That the House at its rising to-day adjourn until to-morrow at half-past three o clock p.m.

Agreed to.

Hon. members will now proceed to the election of a Speaker. I am prepared to receive nominations.

I move that Mr. J. T. Molteno do take the chair of this House as Speaker,

I have much pleasure in seconding the nomination, and I do so with the greater assurance, knowing his conduct of the chair in the last Cape Assembly. I am certain members of the last Cape Parliament, on both sides of the House, know the impartial way in which Mr. Molteno carried out his duties. It is needless for me to say anything more.

Any other nominations Does any other hon. member wish to address the House on the question before it?

in supporting the motion, said that it was not usual to make a speech on such an occasion, but he wanted to say that, he hoped, that Mr. Molteno would unanimously be chosen as the Speaker of the House. Why he did so was because he thought that there was not a man in the House who was better known. For twelve years he had represented in the House the constituency which he (the hon. member) now had the honour of representing, and for seven years they had been colleagues in the House. He (the hon. member) knew how good a representative Mr. Molteno had been, and how good a Speaker.

Does the hon. member submit himself to the House?

I submit myself with all humility to the House.

Will the proposer and seconder kindly conduct the hon. member to the chair?

having been conducted to the chair, said: “Mr. Hofmeyr, before I take the chair of this House as the Speaker of the Assembly of the Union of South Africa, I desire to convey to the House the deep sense—my deep sense—of the honour that has been conferred upon me, and I desire to thank every member, and every section in this House. Mr. Hofmeyr, I have before me the examples of a line of illustrious Speakers who have occupied the chair in the old Cape Colony, in the Transvaal, in the Free State, and in Natal, and it will be my constant, endeavour to emulate their example—to try to follow their example—although I cannot hope to rival or to emulate the position that they took up, and the line of conduct that they laid down. This I am sure of— that I can rely upon the co-operation and support of every section and every party and every member of this House in carrying out the high trust that has been conferred upon me. I know, further, that I can also rely upon the hearty and loyal cooperation of the officers of this House.” Mr. Molteno added that before he took the chair he would like to say a few words in the Dutch language. (Hear, hear.) He wished sincerely to thank hon. members for his election. He thanked the whole House, and it would always be his endeavour to act impartially.

I beg to move, as an unopposed motion, that the House on its rising do adjourn until Friday, at noon.

Any objection? Agreed to.

Before that is done, is it not necessary that you, sir, should submit yourself to Government House, so as to maintain the rights and privileges of this House?

intimated that a time would be fixed later by the Governor-General for Mr. Speakers presentation to His Excellency for His Majesty’s Royal Approbation, and that such presentation would be reported to the House at its next sitting.

read a Commission from His Excellency the Right Honourable Viscount Gladstone, G.C.M.G., Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Union of South Africa, dated the 1st November, 1910, authorising the Hon. James Tennant Molteno, Speaker of the House of Assembly, to administer, during the continuance of this Parliament, to all and singular the members of the House who have been, elected, but not yet sworn, or who may hereafter be elected, the Oath, or affirmation of allegiance, required by the fifty-first section of “The South Africa Act.”

introduced by Mr. Silburn and Mr. Myburgh, subscribed to the Oath, and took his seat.

introduced by Mr. Wilcocks and Mr. Serfontein, subscribed to the Oath, and took his seat.

moved that the House do now suspend business until 3 o’clock.

The motion was agreed to, and business was suspended.

The House resumed at 3 p.m.

Prayers having been read,

presented a petition from the Rev. A. I. Steytler, senior minister of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape Colony, and the Rev. J. P. van Heerden, assistant minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, Cape Town, and Actuarius of the Synod, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to legalise the union with each other of the Hutch Reformed Churches existing in the several Provinces of the Union of South Africa, and to make further provision in respect of the United Church.

Ordered to lie on the table.

appointed Mr. Vosloo and Mr. Fichardt to be Examiners on the petition.

asked if it were not in accordance with the rules of the House that the Estimates of Expenditure for the year should be laid on the table on the first day of business.

A statement will be made just now on that point.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, as an unopposed motion, that His Excellency the Governor-General be requested, by respectful address, to convey to His Majesty the King, through the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the sincere and heartfelt sympathy of the people of South Africa in the great, loss sustained by Their Majesties the King and Queen, the Queen Mother, and the Royal Family, in the death of our beloved Sovereign, His late Majesty King Edward the Seventh, the sad tidings of which plunged the whole of South Africa into the most profound sorrow and regret.

in seconding, moved as a further unopposed motion, that the resolution be taken standing.

This was agreed to, and the motion was unanimously agreed to, all the members standing.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, as an unopposed motion, that His Excellency the Governor-General be requested, by respectful address to convey to His Majesty the King, through the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the (humble congratulations, and dutiful homage of the people of the Union of South Africa on His Majesty’s accession to the Throne, and their earnest prayer that his reign may be long and happy, and be associated with peace and the ever-increasing prosperity of the Empire.

seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, as an unopposed motion, that a Select Committee be appointed, with power to confer with a Select Committee of the Senate, for the purpose of preparing a joint address to His Majesty the King in reply to His Majesty’s most gracious message, which has been conveyed by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn to the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, the committee to consist of the (Speaker, Dr. Jameson, and General Botha.

seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, as an unopposed motion, that His Excellency the Governor-General be requested, by respectful address, to extend, on behalf of the people of the Union, their humble and loyal greetings and cordial and affectionate welcome to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Connaught and Strathearn, on the auspicious occasion of their visit to South Africa, and also to convey to His Royal Highness their grateful thanks for undertaking the arduous duty of journeying to South Africa for the purpose of opening the first Parliament of the Union, in the name, and on behalf of, His Majesty the King.

seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

stated that the following message had been received from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies by His Excellency the Governor-General: “His Majesty’s Government offer their cordial greetings to the new Assembly on the threshold of its labours in the service of a people now united by indissoluble ties. They cherish the confident assurance that it will discharge the great responsibilities committed to its core with wholehearted devotion to the public weal, and that it will always be a loyal guardian of the constitutional liberties of South Africa. I desire to add a warm expression of my own good wishes as Secretary of State for the Colonies.—(Sgd.) Crewe.”

further intimated that steps would be taken to request His Excellency the Governor-General to send a suitable reply on behalf of the Legisature of the Union.

announced that Mr. Fisher, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, who was present on that memorable occasion as representative of the people of Australia, had handed him a resolution adopted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, conveying to the Parliament of the Union most cordial congratulations upon the establishment of the Union and wishing South Africa God-speed. The resolution was as if allows: “Commonwealth of Australia.— Resolution adopted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth:‘ South African Union. —That the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia offers most cordial congratulations to the Parliament of the Union of South Africa upon the establishment of a National Government and Legislature for the Dominion capable, under the blessing of Divine Providence, of accomplishing the tasks required for the development of its Provinces and for the unity of the Empire.’—Parliament House, Melbourne, October 5, 1910.”

thereupon moved as an unopposed motion, seconded by Dr. T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort): That the Prime Minister of the Union be requested to convey to the Honourable the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, on behalf of the Union Parliament, an expression of its sincere appreciation and thanks for the cordial and sympathetic resolution transmitted by the Commonwealth Parliament.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to inform hon. members that I have received the following letter from Mr. Fowlds, the Minister of Education of the Dominion of New Zealand, who is present with us to-day, as representative of the people of that Dominion:

Cape Town, October 31, 1910.

Sir,—As the representative of New Zealand, I am desired to present to the Union Parliament the following resolution passed by each House of the General Assembly of that Dominion Resolved: “That this House heartily congratulate the South African Union Parliament upon the establishment of a National Government.” In requesting you to be so good as to submit the resolution to the Senate and the House of Assembly, I have pleasure in saying that it expresses the unanimous feeling of the Parliament and the people of New Zealand. — I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,

(Signed) GEO. FOWLDS

(Minister of Education).

thereupon moved as an unopposed motion, seconded by Dr. T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort) that the Prime Minister of the Union be requested to convey to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of New Zealand, through the Honourable the Minister of Education (Mr. Fowlds), the sincere appreciation and thanks of this Parliament for the New Zealand Parliament’s hearty congratulation on the establishment of the Union of South Africa.

Agreed to.

stated that Mr. Gysbert Reitz Hofmeyr had been nominated by the Government, subject to the approval of this House, to act as Clerk of the House, and further that in connection with the remainder of the permanent staffs of the House of Assembly and joint Parliamentary establishments, it was proposed to ask the House to refer that matter, as well as the question of pensions or gratuities, to those officers who were not provided for, and who might not be retained either in the Executive of Parliamentary services of the Union, to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements so soon as that committee had been appointed; and that meanwhile arrangements had been made for the temporary performance of the duties attached to the services of the House and joint Parliamentary establishment.

(1) A copy of a letter addressed to him by the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, in which he expressed his regret that it, was not possible for him, or any of his colleagues, to be present at the opening of Parliament, and wishing the Union success; (2) a copy of correspondence on the same subject which had passed between the Union Government and the Governor-General of Mozambique; and (3) a copy of a telegram from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada conveying the congratulations and best wishes of the Government and people of Canada to the people of South Africa on the occasion of the opening of the first Union Parliament.

With the indulgence of the House I should like to make a short statement in regard to the business of the House, and to amplify somewhat the information contained in the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General. I am sorry to say that I expect the programme of work for the session to be a somewhat heavy one. To begin with, two sets of Estimates will have to be passed; that is to say, the Estimates of Expenditure for the ten months, May 31, 1910, to March 31, 1911, and the Estimates for the financial year following,” from April 1, 1011, to March 31, 1912. I need scarcely point out that most of the period covered by the first Estimates will have expired by the time we can hope to have them through Parliament. As honourable members are aware, it was anticipated that, owing to the General Election having to be held, and other intervening business, Parliament would not be able to meet for some months after the establishment of the Union. The South Africa Act, therefore, authorised the Government to meet the necessary current expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund for a limited period. Under this authority the administration of the country has been carried on since May 31, and much of the expenditure now included in these Estimates has already been incurred. Notwithstanding this, we shall submit for the approval of the House the Estimates of Expenditure for the whole period, and thus afford the House the fullest opportunity to discuss the actions of the Government since the establishment of Union. It is proposed to alter the end of the financial year from June 30 to March 31, in order to meet the wishes and convenience of the members, who the Government understand are anxious that Parliament should sit in the summer months at Cape Town. If Parliament agree to this proposal, and meet here in the summer months, it will obviously also be necessary during the present session to pass the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year ending March 31, 1912. I regret that owing to the time that has been taken up by the preparation of the Estimates, and especially the difficulties encountered in drawing up in a consolidated form Estimates formerly prepared separately for the four colonies, it will not be possible to lay them on the table immediately. They are, however, being printed as fast as possible, and will be laid 6n the table at the earliest possible opportunity. In addition to the double Estimates, Parliament will be asked to deal with a good deal of necessary legislation. The Bills to be brought forward by the Government really fall under four heads. Firstly, Bills rendered necessary by the consolidation of departments and services, which exist at present under different Statutes of the old colonies, such as railways, posts, Customs, audit, police, prisons, the administration of estates, and others. Secondly, Bills relating to matters formerly dealt with on different lines by the legislation of the colonies, but in respect of which uniformity has now become necessary under the Union; such as marriages, naturalisation, immigration, plant, and stock diseases, and others. Thirdly, Bills dealing with the financial situation. At present varying systems of taxation prevail in the Provinces, in consequence of the divergent financial policies pursued by the former colonies. However, desirable and necessary it is to assimilate these different systems, it is obvious that it will require time to carry out such a policy completely. In the meantime, the Government will this session introduce a number of finance measures intended to establish a first instalment of uniform taxation throughout the Union. Fourthly, the removal of all Constitutional obstacles by means of the Act of Union makes it now possible for the Parliament and Government to adopt a vigorous forward policy, with a view to the agricultural and industrial development of the resources of South Africa. The particular manner intended to carry this policy into effect will be announced at a later date. It must be obvious that the carrying out of the programme just outlined will occupy a good deal of time. The Government would therefore suggest that this House sit till about the middle of December and after an adjournment over the Christmas holidays, resume business about the middle of January, and thereafter continue the sittings as long as may be necessary in order to get through these questions.

I would like to have further information in reference to the question of the Estimates. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister has stated that the Estimates are now in course of being printed, and wall be laid on the table shortly. Now that is very indefinite, and perhaps the right hon. gentleman will tell the House what that means—whether it means a week or a fortnight or a month. I hope he will be able to give some definite date.

I may tell the hon. member that, as the Prime Minister has stated, the Estimates are in the hands of the printers. We are pushing the printing forward as rapidly as we possibly can. We hope to have the Estimates ready to lay on the table by the middle of the present month.

Surely before that. I have never known Parliament to meet without Estimates being put on the table of the House at its first meeting. This House has been in session practically a week—since last Monday Surely it is not treating the House fairly. I think the Treasurer should give the House a definite date. The printer has, no doubt, given the Hon. Treasurer a definite date, and surely he should give the House a definite date.

I would like to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister whether the Estimates will show the actual position of the various colonies as at the 31st of May last?

Of course not. If the hon. member will only think for a moment, he will see how exceedingly foolish his question is. The Estimates will be from the date when Union was established. They will be from the 31st of May until the 31st of March next.

I think my question is not a foolish question. All I want to know is, whether the accounts of the Treasurer, when they are made up, will show the actual position on the 31st of May last?

That has nothing to do with the Estimates. The hon. member is referring apparently to the Appropriation Accounts. These are at present in the hands of the Auditor-General, and as soon as the Auditor-General has gone through the accounts they also will be laid before the House

When will that be?

That I cannot stay; I am in the hands of the Auditor-General. The hon. member knows that it has been customary in South Africa to have these accounts never earlier than the beginning of the year, and how be expects the Auditor-General to have the accounts ready now with, all these voluminous and complicated statements, necessitated in consequence of Union, I cannot understand.

Might I point out that the Government have been in office for five months, and that during that period of time they have had plenty of opportunity for preparing the Estimates, and for having them printed and ready to lay on the table when the House met. I should like to ask the Hon. the Treasurer when he proposes to take up the old procedure of the old Cape Colony, that is, of having statements of the revenue and expenditure printed monthly in the “Government Gazette,” so that the public can see from month to month what the financial position of the country is? I understand that the Government up to the present have never issued a financial statement of that kind, but I think the House would agree that it would be a good thing if the Government adopted the old procedure followed in the Cape of publishing the accounts, which are the property of the people who have a perfect right to know what the position is.

I would point out to the House that a debate at this stage is not in order. A statement has been made by the Prime Minister, and it is not in order for the House now to debate it.

I should like to ask another question. It has always been the custom in the Cape—

I would advise the hon. member to give notice

All right.

pointed out to hon. members that on their notices of motion they must enclose their names, and also put down the dates upon which they desired either their questions to be answered or their motions to be put.

brought up the report of the examiners on the petition for leave to introduce the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, reporting that the Rules of the House have been complied with.

(1) Report of the General Manager of the late Natal Government Railways for 1909; (2) report of the General Manager of the late Cape Government Railways for 1909; (3) report of the General Manager of the late Central South African Railways for 1909.

Copy of the correspondence which has passed between His Majesty’s Government and this Government in regard to the presentation to the Parliament of the Union of a duplicate of the Commission empowering the Lords of the Privy Council to declare the Royal Assent to the South Africa Act, 1909, and a duplicate of the Royal Proclamation bringing the Act into force, both of which are signed by His late Majesty, King Edward the Seventh, together with the pen and inkstand used by him in signing the Commission, and the table art which it was signed;

(1) Regulations framed under section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act, 1909, of the Transvaal (No. 20 of 1909); (2) amendments to the regulations framed under section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act, 1909, of the Transvaal (No. 20 of 1909); (3) amendments to regulations framed under section 59 of the Registration of Deeds and Titles Act, 1909, of the Transvaal (Act No. 25 of 1909); (4) amendment to the third schedule to Act No. 35 of 1908 of the Transvaal by the addition of certain regulations; (5) regulations framed under the provisions of section 9 (1) of the Transvaal Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act, No. 13 of 1910; (6) regulations made under section 28 of the Power Act, 1910.

moved: That a Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders be appointed, to consist of: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, Dr. Jameson, Mr. Sauer, General Smuts, Sir Bisset Berry, and the mover.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER gave notice to move to-morrow that two additional members be appointed.

moved: That a Select Committee, to be called “The Waste Lands Committee,” be appointed to consider and report upon all such recommendations for the disposal of Crown Lands, or of servitudes thereon, or conditions connected therewith, as may be submitted by the Government under the provisions of any Act or law requiring Parliamentary approval: the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, to consist of nine members, and that the following be members of the committee, namely: The Minister of Education, Colonel Crewe, Mr. Vosloo, and the mover.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That Mr. H. C. van Heerden take the chair in Committee of the Whole House.

in seconding, said that he wished to say one word only. They who were members of the late Cape Parliament could speak of Mr. van Heerden’s absolute impartiality and business capacity for getting through the work of the House. If he might say further as proof of his (Mr. van Heerden’s) fitness for the position, they found that he fully replaced what they all in this House, as long as he had been in it, felt was an ideal chairman of committee, the late Mr. Theron.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the House do now proceed to the election of a Sergeant-at-Arms by ballot, and that the names of the two candidates having the greatest number of votes be afterwards put.

said that as the motion appeared on the paper, the intention was that the voting should be by ballot, first, and afterwards open voting. He thought that voting by ballot should to observed, and moved as an amendment that instead of the motion standing as at present, it read: “That the House do now proceed to the election of a Sergeant-at-Arms by ballot, and that the names of the three candidates having the greatest number of votes be afterwards balloted for, till the list be exhausted.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

The House then proceeded to ballot, the SPEAKER appointing Dr. Hewat (Woodstock) and Mr. Joel Krige (Caledon) as scrutineers.

On the request of a number of hon. members, Mr. SPEAKER read out the number of votes received by each candidate as follows:

declared the election to be between Messrs. T. L. de Havilland, H. D. Stiglingh, and J. S. du Plessis.

The House having again proceeded to ballot,

The scrutineers reported the result of the ballot to be as follows: T. L. de Havilland, 59; H. D. Stiglingh, 52; J. S. du Plessis, 4.

From this it will appear that Captain de Havilland has a greater number of votes, and a majority over both, but 59 not being a majority of the Whole House, all the members not having voted, an election will now take place between Captain de Havilland and Mr. Stiglingh.

A further ballot was then taken, and Mr. SPEAKER announced the result as follows:

thereupon declared Mr. de Havilland appointed Sergeant-at-Arms.

moved that Mr. Gysbert Reitz Hofmeyr be appointed Clerk of the House.

in seconding the motion before the House, and hoping that the election of Mr. Hofmeyr would be unanimous, thought that especially Mr. Hofmeyr would think it only fitting that some words of appreciation should, he said in appreciation of his old chief, who had been called the Father of Clerks. For many years he had served the Cape Parliament, and he was largely instrumental in the smooth working of the Parliaments of the Grange River Colony and the Transvaal, for it was he who furnished their methods of procedure. It was possible, even probable, that he might have been nominated for the post of Clerk to the House, but for the unanswerable reason given by the Prime Minister that the Clerk of the House must have equal facility in both languages. They regretted that Sir Ernest Kilpin had not that facility, and therefore his nomination was impossible. At the same time, he (Dr. Jameson) thought the House would join with him in congratulating Sir Ernest on the high honour he had received at the hand of His Majesty the King for the services that he had rendered this country.

said he would like to add a few words to the remarks made with reference to the invaluable services rendered by Sir Ernest Kilpin, of whom he could not speak too highly. Mr. Merriman also referred to Sir Ernest’s work in connection with the National Convention, and hoped he would live long to enjoy the honour bestowed upon him.

also paid a tribute to Sir Ernest Kilpin, who, he said, was the Sir Thomas Erskine May of South Africa. He had hoped that the Prime Minister would have seen fit to add some words of appreciation of the services rendered by Sir Ernest to the motion that he had placed before the House. He moved as an amendment, to add: And in making the appointment, the House desires to place on record its recognition of the valuable and enduring work in the perfecting of South African Parliamentary procedure, accomplished by Sir Ernest F. Kilpin while holding the office of Clerk of the House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope.

seconded.

said he would like to add his quota to what had been said as to the manner in which Sir Ernest Kilpin discharged his duties. There would be no objection on the part of the Government to the suggestion of the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir B. Berry), but he (Mr. Sauer) hardly thought it would form part of the motion which had been submitted that day. If the hon. gentleman would move it as a separate motion, the Prime Minister would have no objection to it at all, but the present motion merely dealt with the appointment of a certain official.

Will the Government take it as an unopposed motion?

I will withdraw the rider, and submit it as an unopposed motion to the House.

I would suggest that my hon. friend put it down for to-morrow. There are gentlemen who have also been Clerks to other Assemblies in South Africa, and their friends might also like to move something similar at the same time. To the motion itself there will not be the slightest objection, but it might be invidious to pass over the other gentlemen who have been Clerks to other Houses.

With the consent of the House I will withdraw the amendment for the present.

With the consent of the House the amendment was then withdrawn.

was proceeding to express the appreciation of the Dutch members of the late Cape Parliament of Sir Ernest Kilpin’s services, when

pointed out that the amendment had been withdrawn.

The motion was agreed to.

From 42 attorneys, practising in Pretoria, concerning a Commissioner of Oaths for the large cities (two petitions).

Ago of consent, 15 years.

The petition was read by the Clerk at the table

(1) Reports of the Director of Irrigation and Chief Engineer, Irrigation, year ended June 30th, 1909; (2) copies of amendments to the regulations under the Irrigation Act, No. 27 of 1903 (Transvaal).

(1) Schedule of principal Proclamations and Government Notices issued by the Gape Public Works Department between the 16th May, 1909, and the 30th October, 1910; (2) annual report of the Cape Public Works Department, 1909 and 1910 (Partial) (G. 33—10).

Copy of a despatch from the Governor of German South-west Africa expressing regret for not being able to be present at the opening of the first Union Parliament; copies of telegrams from the Governor of St. Helena, the Royal Colonial Institute, and the British South Africa Company, conveying hearty congratulations on the opening of Parliament.

Copies of Draft Standing Orders for the House of Assembly dealing with public business and private Bills, framed by Mr. G. R. Hofmeyr, the Clerk of the House, with explanatory memoranda.

moved, as an unopposed motion, seconded by Mr. C. J. Krige: That these Draft Standing Orders be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

Agreed to.

Representations having been made to me that a considerable saving of time would be effected if the reading of questions, notices of which appear on the paper, be dispensed with by hon. members being required, on being called on by me, to rise in their places and state: “I beg to ask the question standing in my name.” I am disposed to leave this matter to the decision of the House, and if no objection be raised during the asking of questions this afternoon I will adopt this practice for the future.

That His Excellency the Governor-General be requested, by respectful address, to convey to His Majesty the King, through the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the grateful appreciation of the people of South Africa for the great interest taken by His late Majesty, King Edward the Seventh, in the welfare and prosperity of the Union, and especially for His late Majesty’s kindly thought and generous resolve in graciously directing the presentation to the Parliament of the Union of a duplicate of the Commission empowering the Lords of the Privy Council or any three or more of them to declare the Royal assent to the South Africa Act, 1909, and of a duplicate of the Royal Proclamation bringing the Act into force, both of which are signed by His late Majesty, and sealed with the Great Seal, together with the pen and inkstand used by him in signing the Commission, and the table at which it was signed.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Before proceeding to the Order Paper I should like to call the attention of honourable members to the fact that, with the exception of papers of a purely formal character and papers relating to the internal affairs of the House, papers can only be laid on the table of the House in pursuance of (1) an Act of Parliament; (2) an order of the House; (3) in reply to an address to the Governor-General, and (4) by command of the Governor-General. From the form of several of the questions of which notice has been given by honourable members it would appear that they are desirous of having statements embracing the information sought laid on the table, and I now wish to point out to them that where they particularly desire statements to be laid on the table the proper course for them would be to give notice of a motion for a return or a statement, as the case may be, as otherwise it is neither incumbent nor proper for Ministers to lay such papers on the table of the House. In one or two instances where the intention of the member was clear beyond a doubt I have authorised the Clerk to alter ‘the form of the question into that of a motion, but I have hesitated to authorise an interference with members’ notices as, of course, they are entitled by way of question to ask for information if a verbal statement in answer by the Minister will meet their requirements.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (a) What steps, if any, the Government has taken to secure a thorough inquiry into the lamentable incidents which have lately taken place on the Wilhelmsthal-Karibib line of railway construction in German South-west Africa, involving, as reported, the lulling of from 14 to 18 native labourers, and the wounding of an equal or larger number—all presumably British subjects from the Cape Colony—by the German military and police forces; (b) what are the results of such inquiry; (c) whether the names and addresses of the killed and wounded have been obtained and: made known to their relatives; (d) how many of the wounded have died, and what is the condition of the survivors; (e) whether the report is correct that the unwounded labourers who were concerned in the affair have been working since then under military and police inspection; and (f) whether the Government will endeavour to secure the cancellation of the contracts and the return to their homes of such labourers concerned in the affair as desire to return at once to the Cape Colony.

said he was sorry that he was unable to give the hon. member the full details with regard to the occurrence. He pointed out, however, that the Government of the Union had no executive authority in German South-west Africa, and dealing with the matter did not come within its scope. He could, however, inform hon. members that so soon as he received information of the affair the Union Government got into communication with the Imperial Government, and also with the authorities in German South-west Africa. The result was that the British Consul at Luderidtzbucht went to the scene as soon as possible, in order, as he was directed, to make a full investigation into the whole of the circumstances. That investigation was still proceeding. Short telegrams had been received from him, but he had asked that there should be delay until the Government was in receipt of the full despatch from the Consul. He (Mr. Burton) could also inform hon. members that in making the investigation the Consul had the full sympathy and co-operation of the German authorities. It was hoped that, as a result of the investigation, some good, perhaps. Would come out of this evil, and that the status of Union natives working in German South-west Africa in the future would be improved. With regard to the other sections of the question, he would be able to answer in full when the despatch arrived. But he could say that the names and addresses of the killed and wounded were being obtained, and would be made known as soon as possible. No information had been received as to how many of the wounded had died, but the greatest care was being taken of the injured men. With regard to section (e), the Government had no information, and no decision had been arrived at as to the course to be adopted in the circumstances, and no action would be taken until the full despatch had been received.

asked whether the report could not be laid on the table, and any further information in the possession of the Government given.

The hon. member will excuse me, I cannot now undertake to do that. Everything will depend on the nature of the report which is made. We must be guided by that report as to our future action. I have endeavoured to give the hon. member all the information which the Government is able to give him.

Will you allow me to point out that—

I think the hon. member has had a sufficient answer.

asked: (1) Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to certain statements which have been widely published to the effect that some thirty thousand persons have perished in the Witwatersrand Mines during the five years ending 1909, and that of this number twenty-five thousand were unnecessarily and avoidable under healthy conditions of labour; (2) whether they consider the statements to be true; and, if so (3) what steps they intend to take to avoid such wastage of human life in future.

The attention of the Government has been directed to statements of the character mentioned, but from the information contained in the report of the Mining Regulations Commission, it would appear that the numbers quoted by the honourable member are largely in excess of the truth. The Government is, however, fully aware that the health conditions under which miners work on the Witwatersrand are capable of improvement. The steps which the Government proposes to take for the amelioration of the conditions are the promulgation of improved regulations and an alteration in the system, whereby the regulations will in future be more efficiently carried out. It is also proposed to appoint a medical inspector to investigate, and supervise health conditions on the mines. With reference particularly to miners’ phthisis, one of the greatest difficulties in the past has been the non-existence of an efficient device for laying dust, but recent experiments with new devices justify the hope that an efficient dust-layer may become available at an early date.

asked: Whether, in consideration of the vital, importance of the health of the people in the development of this country, the Government will advise the appointment of a Minister holding the Portfolio of Public Health?

The Government does not propose to advise the appointment of a Minister holding the Portfolio of Public Health. Matters of public health can be dealt with adequately in the Department of the Interior. (Laughter.)

asked when the report of the inquiry held by Mr. Truter into the conditions of service and pay of railway employees in the Transvaal will be laid on the table?

who was at times completely inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to reply: At the Greek Kalends. (Laughter.) The report was not intended to be published by the Government, as it was of a confidential nature. Personally, he bad no objection to the report being published, but railway employees had given evidence before the Commission on the understanding that their statements would be treated as confidential. With regard to the recommendations of the report, a considerable number had already been carried out, and of the others all those the Board thought necessary, reasonable, and fair would be carried out. (Laughter.)

I do not wish the Government to lay the evidence on the table, but the report. (Hear, hear.) I would like to know whether the Government intends to carry out all the recommendations contained in the report?

With regard to that, the Government have carried out all the recommendations which they should. (Laughter.)

How are we to know whether they will be carried cut? (Laughter.)

said something in reply, which was inaudible.

asked whether it is true that a request to convey the Rev. Mr. Roux, of Beaufort West, who is suffering from sleeping sickness from Nyasa to the Cape Colony, was refused by some medical authority, and, if so, by whom?

As far as the Government is, concerned, there is no objection to Mr. Roux returning to Beaufort West, and Mr. Roux’s representative was so informed on October 11.

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Transvaal Mining Commission?

An Act closely following the terms of the draft Bill recommended by the Mining Regulations Commission was passed by the Transvaal Parliament, but was not put into operation pending the final report of the Commission. It is the intention of the Government now to put this Act into force and to make it applicable to the whole Union, and to adopt as regulations thereunder the bulk of those recommended by the Mining Regulations Commission, with certain amendments which are required to bring them up to date, and to adapt them to the varying conditions of mining in the different portions of the Union

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to prohibit the further introduction of indentured Asiatic labour into South Africa?

I may say that this matter is engaging the serious attention of the Government.

(a) If he can now inform the House when the Estimates of Expenditure for the year 1910-1911 will be laid before Parliament; (b) Whether he will supply a statement of the revenue and expenditure of the Union since May 51 last, and, if so, when; and (c) for how long is it the intention of Ministers to advise His Excellency the Governor-General to sign warrants for expenditure without the authority of Parliament, and for how long will expenditure be continued without the sanction and approval of this House?

(a) By Thursday, the 17th inst. Every effort has been made to push forward the work. (b) A detailed statement of revenue and expenditure for the period May 31—July 31 was published in the “Government Gazette.” A statement bringing it up to the present date is now in process of preparation. Thereafter monthly statements in similar form will to published. (Hear, hear.)

asked When the Commission to institute an inquiry into the financial relations which, should exist between the Union and the Provinces, as provided for in section 118 of the South Africa Act, 1909, will be appointed?

replied that after careful deliberation it seemed desirable to delay the appointment of the Commission.

asked: (1) Whether it is true that a large number of the officials in the Public Works Department at Bloemfontein have been removed to Pretoria, and that the work in that department at Bloemfontein is practically at a standstill; and (2) will he state when the Government intends to commence the various public works in the Orange Free State, for which votes were passed at the last session of the late Parliament of the Orange River Colony, and whether the money so voted is still available for that purpose?

Will the hon. member allow this matter to stand over until Thursday? Inquiries are being made.

asked whether the transportation system adopted by the South African Railways was inquired into and reported upon by the Railway Commissioners, and, if so, what was the nature of such report?

was understood to say that the South African Railways had never adopted the transportation system spoken of by the hon. member, so that they could not do what he asked. He was very sorry that it was so, but the system his hon. friend, evidently meant was that of the C.S.A.R., because in the Cape Colony they did not have it.

asked whether the Government instructed Mr. Kanthack to make a report upon the progress and the system of the works being carried on under the Government closer settlement scheme at Kopjes, on the Rhenoster River; and if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to publish this report soon?

replied that Mr. Kanthack had inspected and reported upon technical details, and the progress and the system of the works being carried on under the Government closer settlement scheme at Kopjes, on the Rhenoster River. The report, being a purely administrative document, he did not propose to publish it, but he would be pleased to show it to any hon. member who desired to see it.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared, when laying the Estimates for Revenue and Expenditure upon the table, to supply the following information:(a) A statement of Exchequer, receipts and issues in the four colonies for the period July 1, 1909, to May 30, 1910, as published from time to time in the various “Gazettes”; (b) A statement showing the position of the consolidated revenue funds in the various colonies at May 30 last; and (c) a statement of all loan expenditure incurred or authorised by the respective colonies during the same period, and by the Union Government since May, 30, 1910, and the sources from which such expenditure has been met?

said he was obtaining copies of the statement asked for by the hon. member, and would lay them on the table as soon as these were received. As to (b), the preparation of the accounts of the consolidated revenue funds of the four colonies as at the 31st of May last was being pressed forward as rapidly as circumstances permitted, but he was afraid it would not be possible to have them ready in time to be laid on the table; simultaneously with the Estimates of Expenditure for the current financial period. His remarks under (b) applied also to the remaining portion of the hon. member’s question.

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this year, placing legal and medical practitioners in the Orange Free State and Natal on the same footing, with reference to the taking out of licences, as those of the Cape of Good Hope and the Transvaal?

said the example of lack of uniformity in taxation, quoted by the hon. member, was only one among many cases in which the minor sources of Union revenues presented marked anomalies in the different Provinces. He thought the House would agree with him that it would not be prudent to deal with these cases piecemeal, but rather that they should be provided for in a comprehensive measure after the fullest inquiry into the merits of each case, and with due regard to the interests of all sections of the community. He was afraid that, owing to the limited time at the disposal of the Government, and the great variety of anomalies in question, it would be impossible to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session of Parliament.

asked the Minister of Justice why the services of Colonel Burns-Begg, late Commissioner of Police, Transvaal Province, were dispensed with, and the amount of any gratuity, leave, pay, or pension paid on his retirement; (b) why the services of Colonel Madoc, late Deputy-Commissioner of Police in the Transvaal, were; dispensed with, and the amount of any gratuity, leave, pay, or pension, paid on his retirement; (c) whether the question of the retirement of these officers was considered by the Public Service Commission, and, if so, what was the nature of their recommendation; and (d) what were the qualifications and previous experience of Mr. Truter which led the Government to appoint him as Acting Chief Commissioner of Police for the Union?

As to (a) and (b), the services of these gentlemen were no longer required in consequence of the reorganisation of the police force in connection with Union. Secondly, the amounts of gratuity, leave, pay, end pension paid to them respectively on retirement were the following: To Colonel Burns-Begg (a) One months’ pay in lieu of notice; (b) 62 days’ pay in lieu of accrued leave; and (c) a pension under Transvaal Act 9 of 1910 of £289 7s. per annum. (Opposition cries of “Shame.”) To Colonel Madoc (a) One month’s pay in lieu of notice; (b) 58 days’ pay in lieu of accrued leave; and (c) a pension under Transvaal Act 9 of 1910 of £230 per annum. With regard to question 3, he had to reply that the question of retirement of these officers was not considered by the Public Service Commission. (Opposition cries of “Oh, oh.”) In answer to question 4, the factors which contributed to Mr. Truter being appointed by Government Acting Chief Commissioner of Police for the Union, and Acting Commissioner of Police for the Transvaal, were his long and varied service as an official both under the Cape and the Transvaal Administration. His experience gained as an officer in the British Army; his administrative capacity and his general suitability for the post.

asked whether the Government will take into consideration the reduction of the rate of interest on loans granted to farmers by the Agricultural Land Bank of Natal from 6 per cent. per annum?

regretted that it was not possible at the present juncture to take any action on the lines suggested by the hon. member, but so soon as an opportunity offered consideration would be given to the question of introducing uniformity of system and practice in regard to the various Land Bank administrations throughout the Union, and the point alluded to by the hon. member would be borne in mind.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to legalise the union with each other of the Dutch Reformed Churches existing in the several Provinces in the Union of South Africa, and to make further provision in respect of the United Church.

seconded.

Leave was granted and the Bill read a first time.

moved that Sir Henry Juta and Mr. Watt be members of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that Messrs. Becker, King, Oliver, Wessels, and Dr. Watkins be members of the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved for a return showing (a) Statement of the expenditure incurred upon the improvement of the curves and gradients of the main line of railway between Durban and Charlestown, in the years 1890 to 1910, both inclusive; (b) Statement showing the increased or decreased length of the line brought about by the said improvements; (c) A list of the similar improvements upon the said/main line, which are in contemplation, or are being considered, with, in each case, the estimated cost thereof, and the increased or decreased length of line expected to result from such improvements; and (d) Statement of the expenditure incurred during the years 1890 to 1910 both inclusive, upon the provision of additional Passing Stations in the main line between Durban and Charlestown.

seconded.

said that he had hoped the hon. member would have given his reason for-moving for the return. In itself there might be no objection to it, but considerable expense would be involved in the preparation of the information required, and possibly considerable delay would be occasioned. He hoped the hon. member would not think that he (Mr. Sauer) was averse to the motion, but at the same time he thought the House should be informed of the object in calling for the information, so that it would be in a position to decide whether the information should be given or not. The information would have to be got from Natal, and he would ask the hon. member to allow the matter to stand over until he was in a position to give the information. He hoped the hon. member would tell the House why he wanted the information; it was due to the House. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he had no objection in placing himself in the hands of the House as to whether the return should be prepared or allowing the Minister for Railways to look into the matter. As to the expense and trouble, there would be none. The information was wanted for the guidance of the House, in matters which would come up for consideration. He thought the experience of Natal during the past 30 years would be very valuable experience to have.

Is the hon. member agreeable to the matter standing over?

So long as you lay the information on-the table?

was not addressing my voluble friend. (Ministerial laughter.) Is the hon. member (Sir David Hunter) agreeable to it standing over?

Yes.

Well, I move that this debate be adjourned until this day week.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed on the management and superintendence of the Parliamentary library, with power to confer with a committee of the Senate; the committee to consist of Mr. Sneaker, General Beyers, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. Merriman, van Niekerk, Chaplin, Sir David Hunter, and the mover.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved for a return showing the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Transvaal Police who have been retrenched or who have resigned during the period May 31, 1910, to November 1, 1910. The mover said that at the present time a report prevailed that a considerable number of non-commissioned officers and men were making applications to purchase their discharge. If that were so, it was Parliament’s duty to inquire if any cause existed for dissatisfaction, Two or three years ago there were some alterations in the force, which gave rise to the retrenchment of some of the best men.

seconded.

I am very grateful to the hon. member for moving the motion. I hope this House will be in possession of the facts as they are, and not as they are published to be— (hear, hear)—and I have no doubt the House will be satisfied.

Agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed for the management and superintendence of Parliamentary buildings and surrounding grounds, with power to confer with a committee of the Senate, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, General Beyers, Mr. Marais, Mr. E. N. Grobler, Mr. Baxter, Mr. C. L. Botha, Dr. MacNeillie, Sir David Hunter, and the mover.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed on internal arrangements and superintendence of refreshment rooms, with power to confer with a committee of the Senate; that the committee consist of eleven members, and that the following be members of the committee: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wessels, Mr. Fichardt, Mr. Neser, Colonel Crewe, Dr. Smartt, Mr. Meyler, Mr. Quinn, and the mover.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

laid on the table a copy of a message from the Governor of German South-west Africa conveying congratulations to the Union.

laid upon the table copies of correspondence concerning an offer made by Mr. J. H. Averton, to present an “Empire Clock” to the Union Parliament.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, seconded by Mr. SCHOEMAN:

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on internal arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the meeting of this House a unanimous resolution was adopted, requesting His Excellency the Governor-General to convey to His Majesty the King an assurance of the profound sympathy of the people of the Union in the death of our late beloved Sovereign King Edward VII. As you are aware, sir, today, the 9th day of November, is the birthday of His late Majesty, and I feel, and am sure, that this House will agree with me, that it would be an appropriate manner of making our deep respect for the memory of His late Majesty if this House were not to continue its sitting to-day. I therefore beg to move, as an unopposed motion, that as a mark of respect for the memory of His late Majesty King Edward VII., the House do now adjourn.

seconded.

Agreed to.

presented a petition from Mr. J. L. Reade, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways as a daily paid employee in April, 1893, but only contributed to the Pension Fund from April, 1900, praying that he might be allowed to Contribute the arrears by means of monthly instalments from November 3, 1893.

seconded by Mr. RUNCIMAN (South Peninsula), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mr. C. Neumann Thomas, Sergeant-at-Arms of the late Gape House of Assembly, in whose case the award of a pension of £120 had been recommended, praying the House to reconsider his case, end grant him a pension equal to his late salary, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. RUNCIMAN (South Peninsula), seconded by Mr. STRUBEN (Newlands), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mr. G. Varnfield, who was retired in 1903, and in 1907 was awarded a pension of £34 6s., praying for an increase thereof or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. FREMANTLE (Uitenhage), seconded by Mr. WATER METER (Clanwilliam), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mr. Evert L. Kramer, residing at Newlands, praying that in consideration of the injury he received while in the employ of the Cape Government Railways, the pension awarded him in 1905 might be increased, or for other relief.

On the motion of Mr. STRUBEN (Newlands), seconded by Mr. ALEXANDER (Cape Town, Castle), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Alice Gray, of Ugie, East Griqualand, who served in the Postal Department since 1889 with a break in her service from October, 1901, to July, 1902, praying that the said break might be condoned and that, owing to ill-health, she might be allowed to retire on pension.

On the motion of Mr. SCHREINER (Tembuland), seconded by Mr. C. L. BOTHA (Bloemfontein), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mr. A. S. Marshall-Hall, who entered the Cape Government Railways in 1893. In 1906, whilst holding the position of Staff Clerk to the Traffic Manager, Cape Town, he was requested to take up the editorship of the “South African Railway Magazine,” which he did until 1908, when, instead of reverting to his former position, he was transferred to another office, which was abolished, and was subsequently placed on pension, praying the House to take his case into consideration, and grant him further relief.

On the motion of Mr. RUNCIMAN (South Peninsula), seconded by Mr. ALEXANDER (Cape Town, Castle), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions. Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mr. J. P. J. Roux, who served in the Education Department as teacher at Villiersdorp for seven and a quarter years with a break in his service from June, 1907, to January, 1910, praying for condonation of said break, or other relief.

On the Motion of Mr. VOSLOO (Somerset), seconded by Mr. RADEMEYER (Humansdorp), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Elizabeth M. Ackermann, a teacher in the Public School. Hope Town, who has served in the Education Department since October, 1895, with a break in her service from October, 1898, to October, 1901, praying that the said break may be condoned or for other relief.

On the motion of Mr. LOUW (Colesberg), seconded by Mr. VAN EEDEN (Swellendam), the petition was (referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities

presented a petition from Mr. F. M. Weighill, who served in the Cape Government Railways since March, 1881, with a break in his service from March, 1896, to January, 1897, praying that the said break may be condoned.

On the motion of Mr. RUNCIMAN (South Peninsula), seconded by Mr. J AGGER (Cape Town, Central), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

That His Excellency the Governor-General be requested by respectful address to transmit to His Majesty the King, through the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Joint Address from both Houses of Parliament, adopted yesterday, in reply to His Majesty’s Most Gracious Messages which were conveyed by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, on the occasion of the opening of the First Parliament of the Union of South Africa.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

Report of the Librarian of the Parliamentary Library, November 10, 1910.

Copy of an agreement dated at Cape Town, May 3, and at Windhoek, June 1, 1910, entered into between the Director of Posts and Telegraphs of German South West Africa, and the then Postmaster-General of the Cape of Good Hope, with reference to the exchange of telegrams between the two Administrations.

(1) Blue-book on Native Affairs for 1909. Cape (G. 28-’10). (2) Reports (interim and final) of the Native Affairs Commission, 1910. Cape (G. 26-’10). (3) Proceedings and Reports of Select Committees of the Transkeian Territories General Council, at the session of 1910.

In regard to the question asked on Thursday by Mr. Oosthuisen (Jansenville) with reference to the better provision for passengers, by the erection of a proper waiting-room at Barroekraal Station, was understood to reply that he did not know whether provision was to be made on the Estimates therefor, but he must say that the place was of sufficient importance to have its reasonable requirements seen to.

May I, with the leave of the House, before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, say that I have been requested by several hon. members on the other side of the House to repeat to-day the answer which yesterday I gave the hon. member sitting behind me (Mr. Mentz, Zoutpansberg), upon the question of the squatter’s law? Let me say at once that I regret that what I said yesterday was not heard by hon. members opposite, and that it was not due to any discourtesy on my part at all. Continuing, he said that his reply had been to the effect that the Government had not cancelled the notice it had given to natives in various parts of the Transvaal, given before Union, and that the administrative action which the Government would have been bound to take had been postponed for the time being for the simple reason that, as administrative head of native affairs, he had found that he could not Carry out completely the proposals. He would be faced with the removal of 64,000 native families, comprising 300,000 individuals. To take Zoutpansberg district alone, he had found that the administration of that Act would have involved the removal of about 25,000 natives. Well, under the circumstances, hon. members would understand that in all probability it would require police operations, and they would not have had very much assistance from landowners, and he found it desirable, especially as the whole matter was one which, to his mind, deserved the most careful consideration of the Union Parliament and the Union Government, to postpone action; and, therefore, he proposed that no action should be taken for the time being. The hon. member had also asked him what steps the Government intended taking in the future, and he had pointed out that it had been within the province of the Transvaal to carry out that Act in 1908, but that, as a matter of fact, it had been considered physically impossible. The Government sympathised with the principal object of the Act. i.e., keeping apart all natives who belonged to the large areas of native reserves from the white settlers as far as possible; and in respect of the whole matter it was one of the utmost importance to a very large part of the country. Indeed, his project was to carry out a thorough investigation of the whole thing, and to see if they could not, after a full investigation, produce something by way of legislation which would meet that.

in moving the second reading, said that its object was to make provision for the census which it was proposed to hold next year. Hon. members would remember that the last census in South Africa had been held in 1904. That had not been the proper date, which should have been 1901, but the circumstances of South Africa then did not permit of a census being held in that year, and in consequence it had been held over until 1904. It was now proposed to revert to the usual order, and to hold a centennial census next year—early in April. It had been customary in the past to pass in each colony a special Act to provide for a census in the following year, and it was now proposed in the Bill which hon. members had before them, to pass a general law, which would make provision, not only for the census next year, but all censuses in future. In South Africa there would) be the quinquennial census in 1911, and in the South Africa Act there was a provision that every five years thereafter here should be a census of the whole male European population of South Africa; and the method of distribution of seats and the representation of the Union was to follow the results of that census. There would be a universal census every ten years, not only for the white adult male population but for many other questions. Now it would be quite unnecessary to have legislation every five years, and, therefore, the Bill which members saw before them enabled the Government from time to time to fix any year as the year for a census, and the Government for the time being to declare a census. Then it provided that the form of the census and the matters to be embraced by the census should be dealt with from time to time by way of regulation. That, he believed, had also been so far the universal custom in South Africa: not to mention in the Census Act itself the matters to be dealt with, but to deal with them by regulation. If that course were followed, it would be possible for the Government to provide every ten years for an elaborate census, embracing information on all matters which should be covered by a census, and to provide every five years for a more restricted census, which would only deal with questions of the white population necessary for Constitutional purposes. The Bill was in a form which left scope for both these censuses. It then provided what sort of regulations the Government might prescribe. Hon. members would see that under clause 8 it was proposed in these regulations to deal with the duties of the officers to be appointed for census purposes. The most important officer would be the Director of the Census, who would superintend the operations, and who would appoint a number of officials under him, and would direct their operations. The Government had power also to prescribe by regulation what their respective duties should be. Then power was also given to prescribe what forms should be used, and the particulars which they should embody. The Act did not go into great detail, for the simple reason that the matters to be dealt with could be dealt with by way of regulations. These regulations would be framed after the Bill was passed, and would, in due course, be laid on the table of the House, so that hon. members could see what matters were to be dealt with. The hon. member then gave the heads of the subjects which it was proposed to embody in the census forms. He said that in regard to the population it was proposed to ask for the name, sex, relation to head of the family and conjugal condition. These were questions which it had been customary, so far, to include in census forms. Then there would be questions as to age, occupation, and education, and in regard to education it was proposed to ask whether a person had received education at a Government or Government-aided school, or at a private school, and whether he or she was able to read and write in any language. Then questions would be asked in regard to religious denomination, race, and birthplace. In the latter connection, persons would be asked whether they were born within the Union or not. There would also be questions with regard to sickness and infirmity, and agricultural statistics, also in reference to ecclesiastical matters, education, industries, commercial matters, mining, fisheries, and convicts and prisoners. He thought these were the most important matters in regard to which they desired information, and that the result of the census on these lines would be a very comprehensive and very interesting one for South Africa.

said it struck him that the Minister of the Interior was going to work in a somewhat expensive fashion. In the Cape Colony at the last census they simply had one Director as supervisor, and the Magistrates and Civil Commissioners throughout the Colony as acting supervisors. That plan had been followed with very good results. Then, to his mind, the regulations were going to be extremely inquisitorial, and he was going to propose in committee that these regulations, before they became law, should be submitted to the House. In regard to the questions as to age, he hoped the Minister of the Interior would endeavour to include a separate column for children of school age, which, in the Cape, was between seven and fourteen years.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and set down for the committee stage on Wednesday next.

presented a petition from Samuel Madella, of Barkly West, late messenger in the Magistrate’s Court, who retired on November 1, 1910, on a pension of £49 5s. 4d. after nearly 38 years’ service, praying for consideration of his case or other relief.

On the motion of Dr. WATKINS, seconded by Sir B. BERRY (Queen’s Town), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Samuel Calcraft, of Wynberg, who served in the Salt River Works from February, 1890, until 1910, when he was retired on a pension of £49, owing to ill-health, resulting from an accident whilst on duty, praying for an increase of his said pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER (King William’s Town), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from J. W. Duminy, who was retired on a pension prior to 1907, praying the House to consider the amount of pension awarded to him, or otherwise, re-employ him, of grant him other relief.

On the motion of Dr. SMARTT, seconded by Dr. HE WAT (Woodstock), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from P. Kelly, who served in the Postal Department of the Cape from February, 1902, to April, 1909, when, owing to defective eyesight, he was retired with a gratuity, praying for a pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. OLIVER (Kimberley), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities

presented a petition from P. T. Harding, of Vryburg, who served in the Queen’s Town Yeomanry in 1877, in Basutoland in 1880, in the Langeberg campaign, and also in the Colonial Defence Forces during the late war. In 1903 he was appointed sheep inspector, but, owing to bodily infirmity, was discharged in 1909, praying the House to grant him relief.

On the motion of Mr. WESSELS, seconded by Mr. RADEMEYER (Humansdorp), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from S. L. Fox, widow of the late James Fox, who served in the Cape Government Railways for nearly 30 years, and died in June last, as the result of an injury received whilst in the service of the department, praying that in consideration of her late husband’s service, she may be granted an annuity or other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. OLIVER (Kimberley), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from, J. H. Brosius of Edenburg, Germany, who served in the Forest Departments of the Cape, Pondoland, and the Transkei for about ten and a half years, during the period 1895-1908, after which, through ill-health, he resigned his position, praying the House to take his case into consideration and grant him relief.

On the motion of Mr. LONG, seconded by Mr. BAXTER (Cape Town, Gardens), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from J. Williams, who served in Table Bay Harbour Works from 1879 to 1882, and from 1887 to 1909, when he was retired on a gratuity, praying for a pension or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER (King William’s Town), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from H. M. Parker, late clerk in the secretary’s office, Table Ray Harbour Board, whose services were dispensed with in 1908 after over 33 years’ service, praying for an increase of the pension awarded him in 1909, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. ALEXANDER (Cape Town, Castle), the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

1909: (1) Chief Immigration Officer; (G. 4—’10). (2) The Colonial Medical Council and the Colonial Pharmacy Board; (G. 5—’10). (3) (a) The Art Gallery and the South African Fine Arts Association, (b) The Grahamstown Fine Arts Association and School of Art; (G. 7—’10). (4) (a) South African Museum. (b) Port Elizabeth Museum, (c) Kimberley Museum, (d) Albany Museum. (e) King William’s Town Museum; (G, 8—’10). (5) Cape Colonial Forces; (G. 15—’10). (5) Explosives, Government Inspector of; (G. 21—’10). (7) Hospitals and Asylums; (G. 25—’10). (8) Public Libraries; (G. 31—’10). (9) Statistical Register.

(1) Extracts from Cape Colony Government Notices containing amendments to Regulations for the Volunteer Force, 1906. (2) Extracts from Government Notices containing amendments to Rules and Regulations together with Dress Regulations for the Medical Department, Cape Colonial Forces.

(1) Copies of Proclamations and principal Government Notices issued by the Cape Native Affairs Department, from the 2nd June, 1909, to the 30th May, 1910; (2) copies of Proclamation and principal Government Notices issued by the Union Department of Native Affairs from the 31st May, 1910, to the 10th November, 1910.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to form the Select Committee on the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, viz.: General Beyers, Messrs. Maasdorp, Wilcocks and Long; General Beyers to be chairman.

moved: That a Select Committee on Native Affairs be appointed; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, to consist of 15 members, and that the following be members of the committee:—Dr. Jameson, Dr. Watkins, Colonel Crewe, Colonel Leuchars, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. Merriman, Mentz, P. G. W. Grobler, H. S. Theron, Phillips, Bosman, Van Heerden, Schreiner, Watt, and the mover.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Particulars as to the amount of railway traffic in connection with the Butterworth railway station:(a) The tonnage of goods inwards received during the months of August, September and October of the current year; (b) the amount received for the carriage of the same; (c) the amount received for passenger traffic during the said three months; (d) the tonnage of wool and other agricultural and pastoral produce received to be forwarded by rail during the month of October of the current year; (e) the amount received or chargeable for carriage of the same. (2) The same particulars as the foregoing with regard to the railway traffic at Ndabakazi station, and Toleni bridge, and Eagle sidings.

moved the second reading of the Public Holidays Bill, and said the object of the Bill was to provide for a uniform system of holidays throughout the Union. The list of holidays at present was far too long in each of the Provinces. There had been constant complaints as to the long list of holidays, and the number had been reduced to what he thought was a reasonable limit, and in this total were included the great religious and national days of the country. New Year’s Day was, of course, a universal holiday. But it was proposed that the second of January should be dropped. Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Ascension Day had been included. These days fell in March and April, Good Friday was universal, and so was Easter Monday, but there had been some difference of opinion about Ascension Day. It had been included because it had been strongly pressed for by Christian communities. It had been added for a second reason, and that because he found that it was at present a statutory holiday in three of the Provinces. He found that the day following Good Friday was a holiday in Port Elizabeth and in Natal. With regard to Ascension Day, he had circularised the commercial bodies of South Africa, and the replies had been unfavourable so far as this day was concerned. Then they had the 24th of May—Victoria Day—and it was followed by May 31 and June 3 May 31 had been included, as it was the day on which Union was consummated, and it was proposed that King’s Birthday should be celebrated. It was undesirable that their holidays should be in such close proximity, and June 3 had been eliminated, leaving it possible to celebrate His Majesty’s birthday at a convenient date Whit Monday had been struck out of the list, also Arbor Day, which had been celebrated in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The first Monday in October—hitherto observed in some of the Provinces—had been retained; while Dingaan’s Day had been included, not because it had been a holiday in some of the Provinces for many years, but because it was of national significance. (Hear, hear.) He pointed out that it had been suggested as a universal holiday by a Customs Conference, but this proposal had not been carried into effect. Ten holidays in the year were proposed. There might be some criticism against some of the holidays coming too close together. They had for instance, Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Ascension Day coming together at very short intervals, and in December they had three holidays at close intervals, but these were difficulties which could not be overcome. There might also be criticism against six holidays falling in the first six months of the year and four holidays in the second half of the year, but hon. members would find it difficult to fix upon another list.

said that he thought the House would appreciate the difficulties which the Minister of the Interior had to face in trying to put a schedule of holidays before the House which would meet with the approval of everyone. While recognising the Minister’s difficulty, he thought it would be possible considerably to improve upon the schedule. The crowding of holidays into one short period was the main objection which many had to the schedule. The case was even worse than the Minister had pointed out, because of the ten holidays proposed, five of them would occur within six weeks. Good Friday next year would fall on April 14, Easter Monday on April 17, Victoria Day and King’s Birthday on May 24, Ascension Day on May 25, and Union Day on May 31. That meant that five holidays were crowded into six weeks. There was a very strong objection to Ascension Day being observed as a holiday. He did not think that anyone would object to anybody observing Ascension Day as a holiday, but he thought a reasonable objection might be urged against it being forced upon everybody. He pointed out that there was no holiday between May 31 and the first Monday in October. That meant that while five days were crowded into six weeks, there were four months in which no holiday occurred. That was one objection. Another objection was that in his humble opinion the schedule did not make proper provision for the observance of the King’s birthday. He did not think that the great majority of the people of the country would be content with having the King’s birthday on the same day as the Queen’s birthday. He suggested that June 3 should be observed as a holiday. It was quite an exceptional case, standing completely and entirely by itself. He hoped that whatever change might be made, there would be a full recognition of the King’s birthday on June 3. Ascension Day was not, so far as he knew, observed in the other colonies, and he would suggest that they take out Ascension Day and substitute for it the first Monday in August, which holiday was known in England as a bank holiday. That would have the advantage of taking one of the days out of the five and carrying it forward two months. There would then be one holiday between May 31 and October 1.

said that whilst these customary holidays were general, there was one very large section of the community who would obtain no holiday whatever from the enactment of this Bill, or the establishment of any public holiday. He alluded to those who were employed in the great mining industry. If the schedule provided for holidays from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, it would make no difference to those who were engaged day in and day out in the mining industry. Continuing, the hon. member said that it was really necessary that the matter should receive proper attention at the hands of the Government, and those holidays were absolutely necessary. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had evidently given great attention to the subject and was evidently much more concerned with it. No doubt those gentlemen who represented the mercantile interests were of opinion that these holidays were beneficial, and if that were so, they were, no doubt, considered beneficial to those engaged in industrial pursuits. Could the Minister of the Interior not give them any assurance that these holidays would be observed by those engaged in industrial pursuits, otherwise they would have to propose an amendment in the Bill, so as to secure the object which they had in view?

said that that matter of holidays had been brought before the Chamber of Commerce in Durban, and they had very serious objections to the dates on which some of the proposed holidays fell; and, after discussing the matter very fully, they had come to the conclusion that December 16 was a very unfortunate time for having a holiday, on account of being so near the Christmas holidays. He suggested that the King’s birthday might be observed on the first Monday in October. If that could not be done, they in Natal would favour the elimination of Ascension Day from the list, and a day provided in August. He thought that these holidays should be made compulsory, because if they were not, the object of the Bill would be defeated; some people would observe them, some of the stores would not be closed, and the holiday would be spoilt. He hoped that would be considered in committee, and remedied.

said that he would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) to the fact that when he had recently visited Uitenhage he had said to the men that they should enjoy their public holidays. Proceeding, the hon. member said that some time ago administrative action had been taken, as a result of which thousands of the public servants of the country had been deprived of their holiday. It had suddenly been decided by the Auditor-General, on the eve of the holiday, that men who were on leave, should not enjoy the holiday—because the hon. member (Mr. Walton) had been asleep. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Sauer) had done his utmost to make that matter right—but not at election times. (Laughter.) His hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) did his electioneering at the right time, but his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Walton) left it to the last moment. He (the hon. member) hoped that the matter would be so arranged that the Auditor-General would not have the power to disturb the arrangements of thousands of railway men, and enforce his peculiar rules as to what constituted a holiday, or what did not.

said that it seemed to him that considerable amendments for the better could be made in the holidays which had been selected by the Government. He desired to bring to the notice of the House the holidays which had been recommended by the Associated Chambers of Commerce at their last Conference at Bloemfontein, which had kept in front of it the principle that the holidays should be well spread throughout the year, and that they should not come too close together. Another thing which they had kept in front of them was the desirability of holidays falling, as far as possible, on Mondays. The reason was obvious. Those for whom the holidays were intended could leave their work on Saturdays and come back on the following Tuesday morning. The days which the Conference recommended were New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, Union Day, the first Monday in August to celebrate the King’s Birthday—which they had not forgotten—the first Monday in October, Dingaan’s Day, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day. He thought that these days were better spread over the year than the days proposed by the Government, and he thought that the Chamber of Commerce spoke generally for the towns, where the holidays were generally more kept than in the country. When the committee stage came he hoped the Government would consider certain amendments.

said that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had referred to the echoes of the election campaign but he thought the hon. member would be more correct, if he cast his eyes about, and instead of reflecting on the election campaign had cast his eyes on the cross benches, because the arguments of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) were arguments which had been heard on the election platforms in the Witwatersrand. They were quite used to them in the Transvaal, but he felt sure that there were several hon. members to whom they came as something of a novelty. The hon. member had expressed the hope that Government would insist on these holidays being enforced on the mines on the Rand. The only holidays which compulsorily were observed on the mines were Good Friday and Christmas Day, exclusive, of course, of Sundays. The men who worked on Christmas Day were paid double; men who did not work on that day got their ordinary pay. There was a great deal to be said in favour of having more holidays and of arranging them more on the lines prevailing in England, but it would obviously be unfair to expect the mines to pay for these extra days. (An HON. MEMBER: “Why?”) was Government prepared to pay its railway employees for these additional days? (Cheers.) Those of them who were connected with the management of the mines were, so far as the Transvaal was concerned, perfectly ready to go into the question, but he must protest against ‘the manner in which an attempt had been made to get a little cheap political capital out of the question. (Opposition cheers.)

said that so far as the mining industry was concerned no objection would be raised to any reasonable holidays. But he would point out that this country depended to a great extent on the gold mining industry, which every day turned out £100,000 worth of gold. If it were decided to have ten holidays’ therefore, there would be a million pounds worth less of gold put out than was the case at present, and the effect of that on the financial condition of the country would be very serious. This was an aspect of the case which might be overlooked. If they proposed to make compulsory holidays they would apply not only to the gold mines, but they would find their friends the sheep-farmers—(Opposition cheers) —also obliged to do without their herds for their flocks on these occasions, and they would pay their people nevertheless. The whole question was one which required to be very carefully investigated in all its bearings. It was quite easy for the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) to suggest that the gold mines should pay all their employees for all the holidays which that House was prepared to introduce. That, however, was not customary in any part of the world, and if any further compulsory holidays were brought in, the friends of the hon. member for Jeppes would not be in the least thankful to him. The mining industry had endeavoured to arrange that every man should have a holiday at least once a week, but the proposal had met with the strongest opposition from the men who did not wish to renounce their seven days’ Day. The most serious aspect of the question was that gold mining, in the same way as farming, was a productive industry, and every day they out off from the produce of that industry decreased the wealth of the country. (Hear, hear.)

said that so far as he knew merchants were not compelled to pay their assistants on holidays, and they were not asking for security of payment to miners for holidays. He challenged the statement that certain mining employees were paid for holidays. Proceeding, the hon. member said May Day was a very old holiday which was fast becoming universal. Why should there not be an international as well as a national holiday?

said that with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson), it was only the opinion of a proportion of the men on the mines.

said that if the wishes of hon. members on the other side of the House were to be carried out the list of holidays would be increased to a considerable extent. As to the suggestion that King’s Birthday should be celebrated in August, he thought that date, was too far off. However strong they might feel on the question, he thought that public convenience would be best met by celebrating the King’s Birthday on May 31. He thought that the list was reasonable, and good and proper so far as the mercantile community was concerned. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell), he pointed out that there would be ample opportunity for that gentleman to deal with the matter when legislation affecting mining and mining machinery was placed before the House. With regard to May Day, he would say that if that were included the list would be still further lengthened, and he thought the-had better wait for the time when the whole world was ripe for its adoption as a universal holiday.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday next.

moved the second reading of the Naturalisation of Aliens Bill, and said that this was another of the measures that had been brought forward in an endeavour to secure uniformity in South African laws. He went on to deal with the reference to naturalisation contained in the South Africa Act, wherein it was stated that the foreigners naturalised in the different provinces should be considered naturalised throughout the Union. Since then the different systems had been in use, and the measure was for the purpose of securing uniformity in this direction. The most important provision of the will was section 3, in which the period of residence in South Africa for naturalisation purposes was fixed. General Smuts went on to deal with the Periods which had obtained in the Provinces, and said that the term had been fixed in the measure at two years, within the last five years. This might be argued to be a very short term, but against that he pointed out that this was a young country. Then they had decided to eliminate the European descent clause—a bone of contention—that had existed in the Acts of some of the Provinces. This had been considered unnecessary, and it had not been included in the measure.

said that in supporting the Bill there were one or two points which he would like the Minister for the Interior to take into consideration before the committee stage was reached. In Canada he believed there was reciprocity. That was that where anybody was naturalised as a British subject in another part of the British Empire there was reciprocity.

No.

said he trusted he would be able to produce authority for what he said. In any case, that was a matter which should be considered, because if anybody was good enough to be admitted in any other part of the British Empire, he thought there was no reasonable ground why such a person should not be allowed to become a British subject and have full privileges after, say a short period of residence in this country. Another matter to which he should like to draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior was that the Bill only made provision for certificates to be granted by magistrates or justices of the peace, but he should like to see the list enlarged so as to admit of notaries public and commissioners of oaths giving certificates.

said that the Bill raised a number of points which had caused a good deal of discussion at a meeting of the Colonial Conference in London some three years ago. He instanced the position of the man who came to this country from, say, Germany or Russia. That man, he said, took out letters of naturalisation, but these letters only applied so far as South Africa was concerned, and when he returned to his own country he was a nondescript. That had been provided for to some ex ent in Canada, the Government there giving a second certificate to the man, stating the number of years he had been resident there. There was also the case of the man who had been naturalised in one colony and came to settle in another colony, and took out fresh letters of administration. Canada had passed a law which provided that a man who had been naturalised as a British subject in another colony could enter and take out letters of naturalisation without having to wait two years. He did not see why they in South Africa could not do the same. Where a man was naturalised in Australia or Canada, and he decided afterwards to come to this country, and announced his intention to settle in this country, he thought he should be able to take out letters of naturalisation forthwith, instead of having to wait two years. There was another important matter, and that was that the Minister of the Interior proposed in the schedule to repeal Act No. 2 (Cape) of 1883, which allowed aliens to own property in the Cape. He intended to introduce amendments with the object of easing the position of certain people who lived in their midst, and of placing them upon a better status.

said that the whole House would welcome the attempt of the Government to consolidate the existing laws upon such an important subject as the naturalisation of aliens throughout the Union, but if that Bill showed anything at all it showed the necessity of grappling with the consolidation of the laws not in such a haphazard way as the Government was attempting to do, but by the appointment of a comprehensive commission to deal with all non-controversial matters. Where matters were non-controversial the Government in his opinion, should not deal with them in a haphazard way. Although the purpose of the Bill was to consolidate the laws relating to the naturalisation of aliens, the Minister of the Interior must be aware that matters were dealt with in the schedule besides the naturalisation of aliens. If the Bill was passed as it stood, it would leave the question as to whether an alien Had the right to own property in a state of absolute confusion The Minister of the Interior apparently did not agree with him, but unless he brought in some provision in the Bill to safeguard the rights of aliens who held immovable property, he would place the law in utter confusion. The Minister was aware that the question of aliens holding immovable property had always been dealt with under naturalisation Acts. As regarded the Cape Act of 1883, the Government proposed to repeal the whole of it, notwithstanding the fact that it dealt with matters other than the naturalisation of aliens. One welcomed the fact that it was not too expensive to become naturalised, for it was a good sign if a man was willing to become a British subject and to settle down But at the same time that part of the Bill was capable of a good deal of improvement in the direction of reciprocity. Here again, the Minister of the Interior could have looked with advantage to the admirable Cape section dealing with reciprocity. A man who had been naturalised in one part of the British Empire and came here was not treated as if he had already been naturalised, Under the old Cape Act of 1883 the Governor could give reciprocity, and a distinction was drawn between letters of naturalisation granted to an alien and to a person who had already been naturalised in a British colony. He wished that the words “Governor-General” had been put in the section of the Bill before the House rather than “Minister of the Interior.” Then, again, there was a difficulty with regard to the repealing section (the first), and he would point out that there was no adequate reason why there should not be a proviso to the section safeguarding existing rights. That was usually done, and he did not know why it had been left out. It they took the question of the children, they would find that under the laws of pretty well the whole world, when the lather became naturalised, his children under the age of majority obtained certain rights. He thought that there should be some provision in the Bill that where a father became naturalised his children, who were included in that naturalisation, should be given a certificate, which would prove that the father had been naturalised, so that there would be no difficulty at all when the children came of age. Then a very important matter arose under that Bill. There was a section which spoke of the Minister of the Interior giving a person who became naturalised all the rights and privileges of a British-born subject. But at the present moment a Colonial naturalised subject was treated differently than a person naturalised in Great Britain: if a passport was issued to the former it was not so extensive as that issued to the latter, and gave him less privileges, as if he were of lower status than the man naturalised in Great Britain, with regard to the question of European descent he was glad that the Minister of the Interior had not made such distinction. As the Act of Union had originally been drafted it had only made provision for persons of European descent, but he was glad that in the final draft of the Bill that had been left out. As to the period of residence, the Minister of the Interior had hit upon a happy compromise, and he thought that the stipulated period was a very fair provision. He was sorry that field-cornets had been left out, as that was work which they could very well do. Having regard to the fact that a rigorous examination was required in order to obtain naturalised, once that was obtained, the man concerned should have all the rights and privileges of a citizen. (Hear, hear.)

pointed out that under the French naturalisation law a person who rendered signal service to the State had his qualifying period of naturalisation reduced. He recommended that provision to the Minister of the Interior.

said that grievances arose sometimes; in one instance a man had been refused naturalisation because, eight years previous his brother had been convicted of stock theft. He did not see why applicants should be compelled to go to J.P.’s or Magistrates personally known to them, if it might happen that the applicants did not personally know either a J.P. or a Magistrate.

took exception to clause 5, “Minister may grant or refuse application.” There should be some appeal from a Minister’s decision.

said that with regard to the question of reciprocity, that had seriously engaged the attention of the last Imperial Conference, which came to the conclusion that the best way to deal with it would be for the Imperial Government to pass a Naturalisation Bill, which, by an Order in Council, could, at the request of the Colonies, be made to apply to them. The reciprocity clause in the Cape Act had remained inoperative. Correspondence was going on between the Imperial and Colonial Governments in order to fix the general form of a Bill applicable to the colonies; but the question was a most difficult one. Then there was the question of colour. There were many other difficulties connected with this question of Imperial naturalisation. With regard to aliens holding immovable property, he pointed out that the alien had this right under Roman-Dutch Law. Some smaller points had been raised, and one was the question why the Minister had been substituted for the Governor General. It had been usual in South Africa to make the Governor the authority for issuing these letters. This change had been proposed to save the Governor-General a lot of useless trouble. It had been thought better that the Minister, who knew all the points of the question should be the person to issue these letters. It had also been argued that there was no proviso safeguarding these letters of naturalisation. In reply to that he would refer the hon. member to*the South Africa Act, in which there was ample provision. So far as the children of naturalised aliens were concerned, it was argued that these should be included in the letters Issued. But he pointed out that the children of a naturalised alien were no different to the children of a British subject. It was only necessary for the children to prove that they were in the country before the letters of naturalisation were issued, and that should be easy enough. With regard to what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Dr. Haggar) had said, he could tell the hon. member that he was wrong.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday next.

in moving the second reading, said that, when the Act of Union was drafted, some minor points in connection with the administration of justice had been overlooked. The Bill provided for those points. The first clause dealt with appeals from judgments given by the Natal Native High Court. The Act of Union said nothing with regard to those appeals, so that these would have to continue to come before the Privy Council. The Bill, however, remedied that state of affairs. Further, the Bill provided that, when an appeal was noted, the documents sent to the Registrar of the Court of appeal would include the grounds on which the original judgment was given. The Court of Appeal was given the right of referring back cases to a lower court, for further hearing or fresh evidence.

said he thought that this was a Bill that should go before a Select Committee. Continuing, he said that with regard to the first clause, that was a matter upon which evidence might very well be taken. He went on to refer to the clauses in detail, and said that he would net have troubled hon. members but for the fact that he thought it was a pity that the Government should introduce an amending Bill at this very early stage. He might mention that there were quite a number of matters which presented difficulties to the legal profession, and which were not dealt with in the measure. He He might mention that there were quite a number of matters which really indicated that the provisions of the South Africa Act were not such as to enable the proper administration of justice. He thought it would be very advisable that the Bill should be submitted to a Select Committee of experts. That committee could take evidence, and, perhaps, receive suggestions from the Judges of Appeal. Then, he thought, they might get a measure to enable them to carry on the proper administration of justice upon more expeditious lines.

supported the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Robinson), and said that it would be very advisable to refer the whole matter, not only the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, but also the relations between the Appeal Courts and the Provincial Divisions generally throughout South Africa, to a small Select Committee; with power to call evidence, and to decide what amendments were necessary for the working of the new judicial system in this country. It had been mentioned to him by one of the judges of the Provincial Division in Cape Town that there were many matters upon which there was a certain amount of difficulty as to the exact working of the Union Act, and he (the judge) had expressed the opinion that it was a pity that so early in the session the Government should introduce an amending Bill with regard to the Appellate Court. He had no desire to embarrass the Minister of Justice, but simply wished to report to the House what had been said to him by a gentleman whose authority, if he mentioned his name, would be regarded as sufficient for making the suggestion. He said that this was rather a good illustration of the inadvisability of putting down the second reading of measures at such an early date. It did not give hon. members an opportunity to communicate with their distant constituents. He hoped the Minister of Justice would not press the second reading through that afternoon, but would take the course suggested by the hon. member for Umbilo.

desired some information upon what he described as the introduction of a novel principle which allowed the Appeal Court to have the right to call fresh evidence after the lower court had hoard the evidence.

stated that the provisions as laid down in the Bill were the recommendations of the judges of the Court of Appeal. The judges of appeal felt that it was necessary that the Bill should be introduced as soon as possible, in order to meet any cases that might arise under section 1 with regard to the Natal Court. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Caledon, he might say that no matter how novel the provision might be, still there could be very little doubt that it was very advisable that the Court of Appeal should have such power; and he thought that by a provision of this kind the Legislature would meet something that had been very urgently required for some years. With regard to the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he said he did not think that that course should be followed. The committee would do nothing more than what the Judges of Appeal had done.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage set down for Monday next.

moved the second reading of a Bill to impose liabilities upon the Crown in respect of acts of its servants. The Bill, said the hon. gentleman, in the first place, provided for the liability of the Crown with regard to contracts, and acts committed by its servants; in the second place, for the institution of any action against the Government, by which the Minister of Justice would be the nominal defendant or respondent, and in the third place, where judgment had been given against the Minister of Justice, that the Minister should see that the amount of the judgment was paid.

said-that there was one point, which, in view of recent legislation, he would like to direct the attention of the House and the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill. In all of the Acts or ordinances enumerated in the schedule which it was proposed to repeal, there was a proviso exempting the State from any liability or any act of the Post and Telegraph Department or its servants. The point he wished to put before the hon. member was: Was it just and equitable to the subject that the State should be so exempt? The hon. member went on to give details of the well-known action between the company owning the “Diamond Fields’ Advertiser” and the Government of the Cape some time ago, in which judgment had been given against the company, and on appeal, the judgment had been upheld. The appeal had gone in favour of file Government because by the Act of 1888 the Government was exempted because the act had been committed by a servant in the Telegraph Department, but would not have been exempted if the fraud had been committed by a servant in any other department. The hon. member alluded to one of the hon. members for Kimberley who was in the Cape Parliament at that time (Mr. Green), and who now adorned one of the galleries of the House, saying that no private firm of repute would have behaved as the Government had done in the matter. The hon. member said that he put it to the Government whether, in a case where there had been deliberate fraud on the part of a clerk or an officer in the service of the Telegraph Department, the Crown should be placed in a different position than that of the subject. (Hear, hear.) He would not press that point at that stage, but he suggested a suitable proviso being inserted at the proper time, which he read, and which he hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would give his earnest consideration.

said that here was another instance of consolidating legislation, which was brought forward piecemeal, instead of being referred to an impartial Commission, which could deal with such non-controversial matters. Here the Government was continuing existing legislation, and if the hon. member (Mr. Currey) would read section 4 he would see that the Government safeguarded themselves, and that the Minister of Justice would have to decide whether the Government would have to pay or not, if judgment were given against it. That was an extreme provision, and the present was the time to see to it. He would suggest that the word “shall” should be substituted for “may,” in line 3 of section 4.

said the omission of posts and telegraphs made no difference. The points mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) were of a minor character, which could be dealt with in committee.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Wednesday.

presented a petition from W. L. White and 3,420 others, Civil Servants of the late Cape Government, praying that deductions made from their salaries under the Special Retrenchment Act during the year 1908-9, be refunded, or for other relief.

presented a petition from W. T. Newing, a lineman in the Postal Department, Kokstad, who entered the service on April 12, 1900, resigned in January, 1910, and re-entered the service on March 6, 1910, praying that the break of three weeks in his service may be regarded as leave without pay, or cither relief.

On the motion of Mr. KING, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from W. H. S. Brummer, who served as a teacher in the Education Department from 1888 for 18 months and thereafter as a private farm teacher for four years, and subsequently from 1896 to 1909 in the Education Department, after which he was retired, praying for a gratuity, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. VENTER, seconded by Mr. MENTZ, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from F. Wadman, who served for 28 years in the Table Bay Harbour Beard and was retired in December, 1909, without a pension, praying for a pension or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. JAGGER, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mary Beck, widow, who was awarded a pension of £4 a month for two years, in 1909 in consideration of her late husband’s services as sergeant in the Gape Mounted Police, praying for further consideration and relief.

On the motion of Mr. OLIVER, seconded by Dr. WATKINS, the petition wars referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from H. R. Sloan, of Pretoria, who served in the General Post Office, Cape Town, from August, 1898, to October, 1900 as a contributor to the Pension Fund, when he resigned, and subsequently on December 1, 1960, entered the Transvaal telegraph service, praying that the break of 30 days between the two services may be condoned and regarded as special leave without pay or ether relief.

On the motion of Mr. DUNGAN, seconded by Dr. MacNEILLE, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Granite, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Annie Heath, of Port Elizabeth, who was granted a pension of £29 18s. 9d. as a Pension Fund contributor in the Railway Department, praying for an increase of the and pension or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. WALTON, seconded by Sir BISSET BERRY, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from B. P. Wall, of Johannesburg, who served as chief engineer in the Central S. A. Railways from January, 1903, to September, 1910, when on the amalgamation of the railways of South Africa consequent upon Union be was retired on a pension of £253 1s., praying for reconsideration of his case and further relief.

On the motion of Mr. DUNCAN, seconded by Mr. OLIVER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from H. E. R. Haggar, styling himself a civil engineer, who had been employed during 1862 to 1865 and 1873 to 1876 by the Cape Government Railways, and during 1893 to 1897 by the Natal Government Railways, praying the House to take into consideration his said services and his present circumstances, and grant him relief.

On the motion of Mr. WALTON, seconded by Mr. DUNCAN, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions. Grants, and Gratuities.

as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders as follows:

First report of the Select Committee appointed by orders of the House of Assembly, dated the 7th and 8th November, 1910, on Standing Rules and Orders, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, Dr. Jameson, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Juta, and Mr. Watt. Your Committee, having considered the matters referred to them, beg to recommend as follows:

1. 1. That the undermentioned officers be awarded the salaries set opposite to their respective names, viz.: Mr. Speaker, £1,750 p.a.; the Chairman of Committees, £500 p.a.: the Clerk of the House, £1,250 p.a.; the Sergeant-at-Arms, £400 p.a.
2. 2. That as regards the remainder of the permanent staff of the House, the following appointments be made and salaries awarded, viz: Clerk assistant, D. H. Visser, £600 p.a.; chief committee clerk, S. S. Rumble, £400 p.a.; assistant committee clerks: J. B. Rabie, £550 p. a.; W. A. Elias, £300 p.a.; chief translator, C. G. Murray, £450 p.a.; assistant translator. J. H. van Zuylen, £400 p.a. Clerk of the Papers, R. Kilpin, £200 p.a.; chief messenger, G. T. Pullen, £180 p.a.; assistant messenger, T. Oakes, £145 p.a.
3. 3. That Assistant Messenger Pietersen and Storeman Wild be placed on the fixed establishment each with a salary at the rate of £120 per annum.
4. 4. That your Committee be granted leave to confer with a Select Committee of the Senate.
5. 5. That a Select Committee be appointed especially to consider and report upon the question of arranging for the production of an official Hansard for the House.

Chairman.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 15th November, 1910.

stated that unless notice of objection to the report was given at the next sitting of the House, the report would be considered as adopted.

Commissioner of Taxes, 1909-10.

Statements of the Exchequer receipts and issues of the four colonies, 1st July, 1909, to 30th May, 1910.

asked if Exchequer receipts meant revenue and expenditure.

said that it was a return for the four Provinces up to May 30, 1910. It was kept in accordance with the system of Exchequer receipts, and expenditure for that period, following the old lines.

We used the expression, revenue and expenditure, in our country, and the Transvaal used the system of Exchequer receipts which is the same as in England.

(Central) remarked that the income tax return, just laid on the table, had already been commented upon in the public press, He did not object, but he thought hon. members were entitled to see the report before it was handed over to the public.

said he did not know how the report got to the press, but perhaps his hon. friend knew more about it than he did. (Laughter.)

That’s all right.

said that due inquiry would be made into the matter.

asked whether it would be possible to have the return of Exchequer receipts printed and circulated. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members would like to look over the return.

said that this could be done.

said he had already ruled that no paper or return could be laid on the table, except by order of the House, or in accordance with an Act of Parliament, or by command of His Excellency the Governor. He thought that the Treasurer ought to have stated, when he laid the papers on the table, that he did so by command of His Excellency the Governor.

I understock that when I laid the papers on the table I stated that. I may state that there is no objection to having the returns printed and circulated. I might add that the returns have appeared from time to time in the various “Gazettes,” and if hon. members had studied the “Gazettes” they would have got the information. (Ministerial cheers.)

stated that he had hunted for the Orange Free State accounts, but could not get them. Furthermore, the Transvaal accounts had just appeared. (Opposition cheers.)

asked whether the Government intends during the present session to introduce legislation amending the Transvaal Workmen’s Compensation Act in the following respects:(1) In view of the high mortality rate from miners’ phthisis of men working on the Witwatersrand mines, to secure to those who contract the disease or to their families, compensation, the liability for such compensation, to extend to previous employers; and (2) to secure to native employees in case of accident compensation in the same proportion to their normal earnings as is secured to white employees.

I regret that I am unable to-day to give the hon. member the information asked for. I am still making certain preliminary inquiries, and hope to be in a position at an early date to reply to the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will take into favourable consideration the question of establishing a Land Bank in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

For a reply to this question I would invite attention to the answer returned by me on the 10th inst. to a similar inquiry made by the hon. member for Jansenville.

asked whether the Government is aware that the late Government of the Orange River Colony had decided to build, a post and telegraph office at Koffyfontein, and also a bridge across the Riet River at Koffyfontein, and, if so, when a commencement with these works will be made.

I am aware that the late Government of the Orange River Colony had under consideration certain alterations to the existing post office at Koffyfontein. A report and plans showing the proposed alterations have been called for by the Postal Department, and the matter will receive early—and, I hope, favourable—consideration. With regard to the bridge over the Riet River at Koffyfontein, the Administrator of the Free State has a list of bridges to be gradually taken in hand as time and money will permit. The bridge mentioned by the hon. member is included in this list, but I am unable to say when it will be commenced, as this will depend on the Administrator’s opinion as to the comparative urgency of the various bridges.

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the construction of the authorised branch line connecting Howick village with the main line in Natal.

said it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the line. As a matter of fact, a tender had been placed for the masonry and other work connected with the construction of the line.

asked the Minister of the Interior what safeguards are being enforced to prevent the importation of Mozambique sugar free of duty into the several Provinces of the Union.

In accordance with the provision of the Convention entered into between the Government of the-Transvaal and the Portuguese Government on April 1, 1909, Mozambique sugar is only admitted into the Transvaal Province free of duty on satisfactory evidence as to its origin, and on a declaration that it is intended for consumption in that portion of the Union, and on an understanding that it will not be removed from the Transvaal before due notice has been given to the Customs authorities, and payment of the proper duties has been made. Any sugar removed contrary to the regulations is liable to forfeiture, and the contravenes to heavy penalities. A careful account is kept of all importations, and the books of consignees inspected as to disposal thereof. The Railway Department have been requested to co-operate with the Customs authorities in detecting reconsignments to beyond the Transvaal. Such reconsignments are, however, unlikely, owing to the additional railway and other charges which would be incurred, and which would practically make reconsignment prohibitive.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared (a) to lower the price of guano in response to the various representations which have from time to time been made by the representatives of agriculturists and public bodies, and (b) whether he will cause guano to be stocked at the railway stations in districts where there is a demand for the same?

As regards (a), the Government does not see its way to reduce the price of guano. The policy of the Government is to extend co-operative experiments on private forms with fodder, plants, cereals, etc., as much as possible. A profit of about £20,000 per annum is made on the sale of guano. If the price of guano be reduced, this revenue would have to be made up in some other way, and it seems fair that, as these experiments are in the direct interests of farmers, for whom guano is available, the revenue in question should continue to be made out of the sale of guano, which is, moreover, disposed of at little more than half its market value. With regard to (b), the system of stocking guano at railway stations was tried at one time, and abolished owing to the expense involved. An arrangement is in force whereby farmers may order guano through stationmasters. This has been found to meet the case quite well, and seems preferable to the depot system.

asked when the construction of the Greytown-Krantzkop railway, provision for which was made by the late Natal Parliament at its last sitting, would be put in hand?

said that with regard to this matter, he might state that it was under consideration—(laughter)—and very careful consideration. (Hear, hear.) He was not in a position to say when the line would be constructed. The question of the construction of railways was a very large one, and it was the intention of the Government— and he hoped they would be able to carry out their intention—to consider the question of further railway construction during the present session. Of course it did not follow that where there was authority for constructing a railway, there were funds available.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that District Surgeons in the Transvaal took a prominent part in the recent elections, and whether the Government at any time issued instructions forbidding them to take an active part in politics?

I am aware that District Surgeons have taken part in the recent elections, but, in my opinion, they are not debarred from doing so, as they are not Civil Servants, and are only remunerated by the Government for part of their time and for special services. No instructions have therefore been issued to them forbidding them to take any part in politics.

asked (1) Which of the recommendations contained in the Truter report have been carried into effect by the Government; (2) what further recommendations by Mr. Truter does the Government intend to give effect to, and when; (3) what are the recommendations made by Mr. Truter the Government does not intend to bring into effect; and (4) is it a fact that the case of a Mr. Nettleton, who was discharged from the railway service, was investigated by Mr. Truter, and, if so, did Mr. Truter (a) report thereon; (b) recommend any course of action to be taken by the Government; (c) has the Government acted upon the recommendations, if any; and, if not, (d) does the Government intend to give effect to it, and when?

said that apparently this was another attempt to get at the report. Well, he should like to say that, so far as he was concerned, he had not the slightest objection to laying the report on the table. He saw his hon. friend (Dr. Smartt) smile, but he could assure him that he had nothing to conceal any more than the hon. member opposite. He would like to say again that the Government bad no objection to laying the report on the table, but they promised those people who gave evidence that they would treat the report as confidential.

The evidence.

continuing, said that any person who read the report would know who gave the evidence; it would identify the witness at once. So far as identification was concerned, it would be just the same whether they published the report with or without the evidence. He thought that when certain events lapsed interest in the report would lapse too. (Laughter.) Some people had an idea that the contents of the report would disclose something worse than the “Black Hole of Calcutta.” He could assure the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) that it was not quite as dreadful as he thought. Hon. members opposite were quite indifferent to the large class of men whom the report said were badly treated.

How could we know that they were badly treated without the report? (Laughter.)

said Government had carried into effect Mr. Truter’s recommendations with regard to overtime by drivers and firemen, rest houses for men off duty, and the reorganisation at Braamfontein. With regard to the third question, he might be able to give the hon. member a little more definite reply later on. Government did not intend to give effect to Mr. Truter’s recommendations with regard to the supply of mackintoshes to a section of the daily paid staff, payment of bonus to checkers, increase of wages to shunters, or an increased number of shunters. As to Mr. Nettleton, his case was investigated. Mr. Truter reported thereon, but he (Mr. Sauer) did not think he recommended any particular course of action. Mr. Nettleton was discharged; he appealed, and the late Railway Board upheld the decision of the late General Manager. Mr. Nettleton subsequently appealed to His Majesty-in-Council and that was also dismissed. He (Mr. Sauer) did not think that his case would be reopened. Having read the report very carefully, he would say that there was nothing against Mr. Nettleton’s character, but the Government had the right to dismiss Mr. Nettleton or any other public servant who was not on the fixed establishment.

asked the Minister of Lands whether it is the intention of the Government to provide for the inspection and survey of suitable sites for irrigation works in the district of Ladismith, the sub-district of Calitzdorp, and the Field-cornetcy of Tradouw, in the district of Swellendam, on lines similar to those carried out in the district of Oudtshoorn?

The scope of the Oudtshoorn reconnaissance survey, so far as at present contemplated, is outlined in paras. 32 and 33 of the annual report of the Director of Irrigation for the Cape Province, for the year 1909 (G.32-1910), which was laid on the table of the House on November 8, 1910. This embraces the Calitzdorp area. If funds are available, the survey operations will, if possible, be extended to portion of the division of Ladismith, and to the Field-cornetcy of Tradouw, in the Division of Swellendam.

asked the Minister of Agriculture:(1) Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the establishment of the Agricultural College at Pretoria, for which the sum of £100,000 was voted by the late Transvaal Parliament, and a large area of land granted by the Pretoria Town Council; (2) whether any plans have yet been prepared; and, if so (6) whether provision has been made in these plans for the extension and development of this institution into a first-class modern Agricultural College equal to the requirements of the whole of South Africa; and if not; (4) whether it is the intention of the Government to make such provision; and (5) when work will be commenced?

replied to the first question in the affirmative Plans had not yet been prepared, but the matter would be taken in hand. It was impossible to say at present when the building would be commenced.

asked whether the resolution of the late Parliament of the Orange River Colony of November 24, 1909, as also the resolution of March, 22, 1910, with regard to railway connection for the western and northwestern parts of the Orange Free State (Boshof, Hoopstad, and Kroonstad West), along with the necessary surveys which are contained in those resolutions, have been brought to the notice of the Union Government; and, if so, what steps the Government intends to take to give effect to those resolutions?

replied that the survey had been made, but what would be done he could not say. If the matter came before the notice of the Government, he could assure the hon. member that Government would give it its most serious attention. (Laughter.)

asked:(a) Whether the Government is aware that applications from farmers for loans, under the Cape Colony Fencing Act, No. 37, of 1909, have been met with the reply that the funds available for such loans are exhausted, and that in consequence very important contemplated works arc being hung up; (b) whether it is the intention of Government at an early date to apply to Parliament for authority to devote a further sum of money to the purposes of the above Act, and whether in the meantime some arrangement could not become to so as to avoid interruption in the continuity of the development contemplated by the Act?

(a) The Calpe Fencing Loans Act, No. 37, of 1909, contemplated that the loans sanctioned thereunder should be met from the proceeds of a public loan sanctioned by the Cape Act, No. 27, of 1908. But no portion of the public loan authorised by the Act of 1908 was ever raised by the Government of the Cape Colony, and therefore it is not quite correct to say that “the funds available for such loans are exhausted.” (b) The Government arc alive to the importance of providing facilities for the erection of fencing in country districts, and it is their intention to ask Parliament at an early date to authorise the provision of funds for this purpose. As a matter of fact, since May 31, the Government have anticipated the approval of Parliament in this respect by authorising the issue of loans, aggregating some £2,300, for these services in the Cape Province.

asked the Minister of Lands:(1) Whether he is aware that there are numerous applicants for the vacant land comprised in the first railway grant in Bechuanaland, known as the Korannaberg; (2) whether he is still negotiating with the Bechuanaland Railway Company with a view to a subdivision of the said land; and (3) whether, in the event of such negotiations having fallen through, he intends to deal with that land forthwith in terms of Act No. 23 of 1893 (Cape)?

(1) The Minister is aware of the fact that there are a number of persons desirous of securing farms in the Korannaberg. (2) Negotiations with a view to arriving at a dissolution of the partnership existing between the Government and the Rhodesia. Railways, Ltd., in regard to the land in the first railway land grant, are at present under consideration. (3) Whether the negotiations lead to an agreement or fall through, in view of the fact that past experience has shown that the allotment of farms without a water supply is unsatisfactory, and has rendered it difficult to enforce the conditions requiring personal occupation by the licencees, the Government does not at present propose to throw open any farms in that locality until it has been decided what steps, if any, can be taken to secure a water supply. Proposals to bore for water are at the present time under consideration.

asked:(1) Whether the Government will, when considering the subject of railway extension, give attention to the needs of Zululand, in this respect, as recognised by the Natal Parliament, by legislation passed during the session of 1909; and (2) whether, with reference to the survey from Empangeni to Vryheid, now being undertaken, it is the intention to open up lands occupied by farmers, or to pass through native reserves; or will alternative surveys be presented?

replied that when the railway programme came to be dealt with, Zululand’s claims would be considered with others.

asked the Prime Minister: (a) Whether he will take into his favourable consideration the question of appointing a Minister for Labour on the lines adopted in New Zealand, or similar lines; and (b) whether he will at the earliest opportunity, in view of the importance of protecting local industries against unfair competition, take into consideration the introduction of a Bill on the lines of the Australian Industries Preservation Act?

replied that he did not consider that the time had come in South Africa for the appointment of such a Minister. A Commission would be appointed to go into certain questions, and the Government would not take any action in that matter before it had the recommendations of that Commission before it.

asked the Minister of Justice:(1) Whether his attention had been directed to a certain report appearing in the “Cape Times” of November 11, 1910, with regard to the Transvaal police in Ermelo; (2) whether any members of the police force in the Ermelo district had been retired since May 31, and, if so, for what reasons; (3) whether any members of the police force in the Ermelo district have been transferred to any other districts since May 31, and, if so, for what reasons; (4) how many English-speaking members of the police force were in the Ermelo district on May 31, and how many are there now; (5) whether he has received any complaints with regard to the retirement or transfer of members in the police force of the Ermelo district; and (6) whether he is prepared to re-establish the police station at Mayflower?

(1) The report in question was so exaggerated that it might be called false in many respects, as would appear from his subsequent answers. (2) No member of the police force in the Ermelo district had been retired since May 31. (3) Certain members had been transferred who were not sufficiently well acquainted with the Dutch language or the local conditions. (4) On May 31 there were 26 members of the force there who were English-speaking, and 19 who also spoke Dutch; now there were 22 English speaking and 21 who were also Dutch speaking, so that in a Dutch place like Ermelo he did not think that gave any cause for complaint. (5) No such complaints had been received by the Acting Commissioner of Police or any responsible officer. (6) No; owing to the comparative absence of crime there. The Commissioner of Police was considering the advisability of establishing another station with regard to the removal of cattle to Swaziland.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is correctly reported as having stated in reply to a question asked in this House that the Government intend to follow the system upon the railways of paying for overtime worked at the same rates as those paid for ordinary time, and, if so, whether the Government will afford this House an opportunity to discuss the question prior to promulgating any rules or regulations throughout the railway service bearing on the question of payment for overtime?

was understood to reply that the question was for the Railway Board to consider as well as other cognate questions. He was not prepared at the present stage to indicate in any way whether there would be a change in the position, but the question of uniformity over the whole of the Union would have to be considered.

asked:(a) Whether a request was recently made to the Government by the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa for the appointment of a third permanent shorthand writer; (b) whether such request was refused; and (c) whether the Government is prepared to reconsider the matter and make the necessary provision on the Estimates, in view of the serious inconvenience caused to the judges, practitioners, and suitors in the Third Division of the Court by reason of the absence of such permanent officer?

(a) Yes. (b) The request was not entertained, in view of the fact that the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court at the Cape did not habitually sit in three divisions, and authority had been given to engage, when necessary, an additional shorthand writer and typist, (c) The question of providing a sufficient staff of shorthand writers for the Supreme Court was at present being considered, and the question had already for some time engaged the attention of his department. In Natal there were two shorthand writers, in the Transvaal two, one at Pretoria, and one at Johannesburg, and a third was lent from time to time from the Department of Justice. In the Cape there were three, while in the Free State there were none. There could be no doubt that everyone who knew the conditions and the desire for exact copies of the evidence must feel the necessity for sufficient shorthand writers. In as short a time as possible the different Provincial Courts would be supplied. (Hear, hear.)

asked:(1) Whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint at an early date an additional engineer in the South-western Circle, as urgently recommended by the Director of Irrigation in his report for the year 1909; and (2) whether it is the intention of the Government to provide for the inspection and survey of suitable sites for irrigation works in the districts of Riversdale and Mossel Bay?

(1) The additional assistance asked for by the Director of Irrigation in the South-western Circle, in his annual report for 1909, has since been granted by the Government, and under the reorganisation scheme of the Irrigation Department, the Circle Engineer in charge of this portion of the country has two assistant engineers with him. (2) It is not the intention of the Government to carry out, in the immediate future, any systematic survey operations in the divisions of Riversdale and Mossel Bay, with the possible exception of a survey along the lesser Gouritz River.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:(1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the comments made by the Magistrate of the Second Criminal Court, Cape Town, on Thursday, November 10, upon the danger and inconvenience to the public arising out of the insufficiency of staff upon the Sea Point line, in consequence of which one man is required to look after each station, and act in the capacities of station-master, booking clerk, ticket collector, signalman, gateman, and porter; and, if so, (2) whether he intends to take steps to remedy this grievance?

replied that his attention had been drawn to the matter, which had first of all been referred to the Department of the Minister of Justice. At Monument Station, on the Sea Point line, there were two foremen, two shunters, and two ticket collectors. Well, that seemed ample for a minor station like that. And so it was with the other places. He must say that there were a number where one man only was in charge, but the railway people said that there was not enough work even for him. (Laughter.) There was no danger of overwork, and he could assure his hon. friend that he was on the wrong scent that time. (Laughter.)

asked whether the functions of the Council of Education, constituted under section 7 of the Transvaal Education Act, 1907, are confined to matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Council of that Province, or whether they also advise the Minister on matters coming within his jurisdiction?

replied in the affirmative to the first part of the question, and in the negative to the second part. He added that provision for the Normal Schools was made on the Provincial Estimates, and the directors of education had been considering the adoption of a uniform scheme for the issue of certificates to teachers throughout the Union. The question of the transfer of the Normal Schools was being held in abeyance.

asked whether the Government intend to place cool chambers and elevators for wheat on suitable spots along the railway, and also in other localities where it may be necessary?

said that the Government had this question under consideration, and had one or two competent men inquiring into the matter. Something would be done shortly.

asked whether the Government is prepare during the present session to consider the desirability of providing a sufficient sum of money for, and to introduce the necessary legislation authorising, the extension of railway communication in the district of Marico, namely, the extension of the Krugersdorp-Zeerust line from Zeerust, via Ottoshoop, to Buhnmansdrift?

said that the question would be considered when the whole matter of railways came before the House for consideration. He might say that he did not think there was a single member in the House who did not want a railway. (Laughter.)

asked whether the Government intend to introduce a general Scab Bill for the whose Union during the present session?

said that a Bill dealing with animal diseases was being introduced, and that it would provide for scab. (Hear, hoar.)

asked whether the practice of contrecting out of liability is insisted upon by the Government in the case of workmen engaged in dangerous employments on the South African Railways in Natal, and if so, whether he will take steps to have this practice abolished?

was understood to reply that this practice was not in operation on the South African Railways in Natal. The Government was not excluded, so he was understood to add, under the Workmans Compensation Act.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to inform the House when the various Provincial Councils will be called together for the purpose of electing their executive committees in order to comply with section 118 of the South Africa Act 1909, the latter part of which reads: “The Executive Committee of the several Provincial Councils shall annually submit estimates of their expenditure for the approval of the Governor-General-in-Council, and no expenditure shall be incurred by any Executive Committee which is not provided f.ir in such approved estimates”?

I am not at present in a position to inform the House when the various Provincial Administrations will be called together I may state that there is nothing to Dre vent the Administrators from calling their respective Provincial Councils together at once, but such a course would not serve any useful purpose, as there would be little or no work for the Provincial Councils to perform until such time as the Union Parliament has decided what funds are to be voted to the various Provincial Councils out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In accordance with the undertaking given by the Minister of Finance a few days ago, the Union Estimates of Expenditure, showing the proposed grants to the Provincial Councils out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be laid on the table on the 17th inst.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is in a position to state when the railway rates will be altered so as to bring the rates to Kimberley into line with other places of the same distance from the coast, and to do away with the anomaly of carrying goods to stations beyond Kimberley at a lower rate of carriage than to Kimberley?

replied that there were places in a similar position to Kimberley so far, as railway rates were concerned. It was intended to reorganise the rating system, and he hoped and expected that this would take place in a very short while. The matter had been engaging the attention of the Railway Administration, and be hoped that notice of the change would be given before the end of the present year. If the full extent was not done away with, at least a substantial grievance would be removed, il was quite true that certain parts of the Cape Province seemed to have been bled for the purpose of revenue.

asked the Prime Minister whether the principle of only engaging officials conversant with both English and Dutch languages, which the Minister of Public Works stated on the 10th inst., is being applied to the postal and telegraphic services, is also applied in the selection of Field-cornets?

said it was possible that the question bad been placed on the paper under a misunderstanding, as he answered a question of a similar nature placed on the paper the other day by the hon. member for Ermelo. He, therefore, proposed to reiterate what be then said. Every endeavour was being made to meet the dual language requirements in the Post Office of the Cape Province. No learner was being appointed in the Cape Province until he was reasonably proficient in the Dutch language, and it was intended that this system should be carried into effect in the other Provinces. Notices of different kinds and farms were also being printed in bath languages. He added that the system of dealing with learners in the Cape Province was giving satisfaction. Boys were taken on between the ages of 14 and 17, and paid, when they became proficient in the Dutch language their pay was increased. He hoped that this system would soon be extended to the other Provinces.

said that as far as possible Field-comets would be appointed from among such as were proficient in both languages. (Hear, bear.)

moved that Mr. Madeley be a member of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that “this House is of opinion that in the equalisation of taxation throughout /the Union it is imperative that the poll tax of one pound per bead, now in force in the Province of Natal, should be abolished.” He said that the people of Natal were labouring under certain grievances as far as taxation was concerned, and it was essential that these grievances should be brought before the House at the earliest, possible opportunity. The history of what led up to these grievances and the passing of the poll tax was as follows: In 1904 the Government of Natal found that it had a serious deficit to meet, and they proposed certain forms of taxation. They had four Bills which they brought before the House—a personal tax to impose a poll tax and do away with the hut tax which the natives paid and still paid, a graduated house tax, a tax on private flotations, and an unoccupied land tax. These taxation Bills were all duly passed by the House of Assembly, but they were all thrown out by the Legislative House. The Government were in a very serious difficulty, because it was late in the year, and they had to meet not only the deficit of the past year, but they had also to face a further deficit on the current year, and as a temporary measure the poll tax was passed by the Assembly, accepted by the Upper House, and became law. It was pointed out that this was to be a temporary measure. It was to meet the stress of times, and it was to be removed at the first opportunity. Since then, however, it had not only been found necessary to keep the poll tax, but new taxation measures had been introduced. The speaker went on to deal with the main clauses of the poll tax. He stated that every male over 18 years of age had to pay a tax of £1, with certain exemptions, including the following persons: the Governor and his staff the naval and military authorities, including the European members of the Natal Police, and Consuls. There were special exemptions, as for instance, in the ease of natives who paid the but tax, which amounted to 14s. per annum, natives working in the colony but domiciled outside the colony, and indentured Indians. Persons were excused on account of poverty, and persons passing through the colony were also exempted. He pointed out that the burden of proof of age was on the person who was called upon to pay the tax. The tax was due on January 1 in each year, and that was why he had deemed it necessary to bring up the matter at the earliest possible opportunity. The tax would become payable on January 1 next, and unless something was done during the present sitting of Parliament the whole of the people of Natal would be called upon to pay the tax during next year. Now, the natives did not pay until May next, and if it was thought necessary during this session, either before the recess or after Christmas, to impose a certain tax on the natives of Natal, then there would still be ample time for the Treasurer to proceed in the matter. (The speaker went on to say that in the past there had been a tendency to hesitate in Natal in interfering with any Acts in the Statute-books, especially when class legislation might be introduced, for fear that the Home Government might exercise its prerogative. He hoped that this state of things would not exist any longer, and that the Imperial Government, having given to them in South Africa the full right to rule themselves, would hesitate to interfere if this House saw fit to introduce taxation that was in the nature of class legislation. It was not right or fair that this Government should hesitate to withdraw taxation or Acts that were objectionable to the people, just because they were afraid that if they introduced new measures, the veto would be exercised. He thought that this danger which bad been held over them in Natal did not now exist, and they should not hesitate to remove from their Statute-books laws which were objectionable. There were various objectionable clauses in the Natal Poll Tax Act. For instance, a policeman might call upon a professional man in his office at any time, and ask him to produce his poll tax receipt. Another objectionable clause was with reference to those who were exempted on the ground of poverty. A man had the right to go to a Magistrate and make a declaration that he was not in a financial position to pay the tax. There was a number of persons who found it necessary to do that, but there was also a large number who hesitated to go to a Magistrate and pauperise themselves in that way. Poverty was no crime, and he considered that that clause in the Act was very objectionable. In 1908 the Government brought in an Income and Land Assessment Act, under which incomes not exceeding £240 a year could not be taxed at all, except those earned by bachelors and widowers without children. The income and land tax met with general approval, but it was not continued. Almost the last thing the Natal Parliament did was to repeal the Income and Land Tax Laws; but the Union Treasurer could bring in a Bill to collect these taxes up to June 30 last. So far as the poll tax was concerned, it was estimated to produce £120,000 a year, only a quarter of which was paid by the Europeans. This tax weighed most heavily on the poor people, and had no right to be found on the Statute-book of the Union. It was a tax that should be imposed only under especial circumstances that did not exist at the present time. The people would not object to an income tax, but the poll tax they regarded as infamous. The many were being taxed so that the few could escape. The Parliaments of South Africa in the past bad not represented the entire people, but now we were on a different footing, and there was a democratic body in that House. The poor man had now as much to say in the ruling of the country as the rich man had. It was to the poorer classes that Parliament would have to account in dealing with taxation measures. The tax was an unpopular one, owing to the way in which it was imposed. If it had not been because of the eve of Union, the then Government of Natal would have been put out of office. It was felt at the time that a change was not desirable, but he would like to point out that not a single member of that Government had been returned at the recent elections. Proceeding, the hon. member quoted Nathaniel Nathan on “Economic Heresies,” a writer who, he said, was the brother of the former Governor of Natal, and in that book the author condemned the poll tax. It was a blot that they still found that tax on their Statute-book in its native crudity, and he hoped that the Government would see that it was removed as soon as possible. It was a matter which could not be left alone, and he hoped that it would be dealt with before the end of the current year.

said that the poll tax was one of the Middle Ages, and one which should not be inflicted at the present time. It was not imposed in any of the other Provinces of the Union. If the Treasurer found that he must have other taxation, let him bring in a Bill which provided for taxation which fell fairly on all but let them not have such an unfair tax as the poll tax. A man who had an income of £2,000 a year or a labourer who only received 6s. a day had to pay the same. Natal was quite willing to y its fair share of taxation, but it must on a fair basis. An income tax was one which was fair.

said that because the poll tax was so unfair it had become extremely unpopular in Natal, and there were few Acts which the Union Government could do which would be more popular than wiping off the Statute-book that most objectionable tax. He did not ask that it should be removed from the white men only and not the black men; he thought they ought to be fair to their black fellow-men, and he sincerely hoped that the people of Natal who objected to the tax would receive the support of hon. members.

said that it seemed to him that the hon. member who had introduced that motion and had got his friends from Natal to support him, had rather anticipated events. The speeches which had been placed before the House were speeches which he thought could have waited until there was some definite scheme before the House for equalising taxation. (Hear, hear.) For the present, he might say that he entirely agreed with a number of the arguments of hon. members from Natal that the poll tax was not a popular tax; and he hoped never to bring forward any scheme which would involve taxing the heads of the people. (Cheers.) The House, however, was not responsible for that poll tax—the people of Natal were. (Laughter.) He was sorry that the Government was not in a position that day to accept the resolution moved by his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Meyler), who wanted the House to give an undertaking in advance that it would on some future occasion, when a scheme for equalising taxation was brought forward, treat Natal preferentially, for that was what it came to. (Some Natal HON. MEMBERS: “No, no.”) He did not see how the House could pledge itself in advance, because if they examined the terms of the resolution, hon. members must agree with him that it was merely art abstract proposition, and they were asked to vote on a matter which was purely an academic one. Until hon. members had had an opportunity of considering the whole financial position of the Union, it was impossible to pledge themselves in advance as to what taxation should, or should not, be imposed. There was a further objection, which applied not only to Natal, but right throughout the Union. It was obvious that if they wished to bring about the uniformity of taxation which had been referred to in the Governor-General’s Speech, it could not be brought about at once. Continuing, he said that-be knew of all these inequalities, but it was Obviously impossible to bring about a complete change at once. He sympathised with the hon. member, and what he had had to say about the poll tax. The hon. member had talked about democratic legislation, hut he did not see where that came in when the mover wanted the tax removed from European shoulders and left on the shoulders of the coloured population. That was a new system of democratic taxation that he had never heard of. He thought the hon. member should have waited until some scheme for the equalisation of taxation was placed before the House. But he would remind the hon. member that those inequalities were evident in all parts of the Union. He pointed out that in the Transvaal there was a very heavy tax on ‘ the natives—a population of about a million souls. In the Cape Province they had a very different system of taxation, so far as the natives were concerned. While he was not prepared to say that the Cape tax should not be levelled up to that of the Transvaal, he was not prepared to say that the House should lower the tax in the Transvaal to the standard that obtained in the Cape Province. The Treasury would be, in a nice position if this sort of thing was carried into effect. They would not have enough money in the Treasury to meet the ordinary expenditure of the country. Then he alluded in detail to the difference in the transfer duty which obtained in the different Provinces. If the inequalities of taxation in Natal were urgent, then the same must be said of the inequalities which existed in the other Provinces of the Union. He could go on reciting a number of inequalities that existed in the country, but he did not wish to weary the House. He could deal with the inequalities of the Stamp Act, and those connected with the mining industry, hut he would ask hon. members on the other side to wait until they saw the financial position of the country, and then make suggestions to the Government for the equalisation of taxation. With all respect, he might say that an attorney would call the motion self; destructive, because, if they were to have equalisation there must be no poll tax in Natal, or a poll tax throughout the Union.

said that one of the principal things the House had to do was to see that there was equality of treatment meted out to all parts of the Union in regard to taxation. And in this regard some system of equal treatment should be carried into effect with as little delay as possible. He thought that the question was a very practical one, so far as Natal was Concerned, because if something; was not done during the course of this year the tax would be re-imposed, and they, in Natal, most strongly objected to paying a direct tax which did not fall upon the shoulders of all the people within the Union. They did not object to paying a tax that would fall equally upon the rest of the people of the Union; but they did object to this direct tax, which only affected the Province of Natal. He pointed out that the majority of the members of the late Government of Natal were re-elected, and the reason was that the tax was only imposed because the Province had been in dire financial straits. The tax was imposed for the purpose of paying their debts, and the people of Natal had recognised that. If the Province of Natal were separated at the present time, it would be in a position to repeal this tax, because it was imposed at a time when their Treasurer found it hard to make ends meet. This poll fax was merely imposed, because the Government could not find a more equitable form of taxation. There was no attempt on the part of the members of the Government to justify the tax as a just tax. It was a tax necessary at the time. The Treasurer said that they should wait until some scheme of equalisation was brought before the House; but how long would they have to wait? It seemed to him that it would be a long time before all these inequalities which existed in the different parts of the Union were removed So far as the transfer duty was concerned, he pointed out that this tax only fell on a portion of the people, and a portion well able to bear such a burden. This poll tax fell upon all the people in Natal. So far as the natives were concerned, the poll tax could be removed, and a hut tax, as suggested in the report of the South African Native Affairs Commission be imposed. The Commission, by the way, had suggested that the natives were not paying their fair share of the cost of administering the country. At the same time, he hoped that the Minister would see his way clear to remove the tax, so far as the whole of the population of Natal was concerned.

said he did not think that the motion should be pressed to a vote. He did not think there was a member on his side of the House that was in favour of a poll tax, but hon. members of the Cape Province could not vote in favour of the motion, because there were pressing inequalities in the Cape Province that needed a remedy. He moved as an amendment “the previous question.”

said he was surprised at the suggestions made by the Minister of Finance, as the reason for the introduction of the motion. He (the speaker) might have been assisted by his Prime Minister, but he certainly had to go to his constituency to fight his election. He had not been in the happy position of the Minister of Finance, who sat in his office while the Prime Minister fought his election. If he had done nothing more, he had drawn from the Minister and another occupant of the Treasury benches that they were not in favour or the poll tax, and that they did not think that anybody in the House was in favour of such a system of taxation. They had at least scored on that point. He would like to say that the Minister of Finance minister preted him when he said he (Mr. Meyler) only favoured the tax being taken off European shoulders. What he did say was that the point as to whether it should be left on the natives should rest with the Minister. In the circumstances, he begged leave to withdraw the motion.

Both amendment and motion were withdrawn.

moved for a return showing:(a) The strength of the police force in Johannesburg on the 1st March, 1907, and setting forth the names, ages, rank, length of service and pay of each of the men; (b) the number of men enlisted in the police force of the Transvaal since the 1st March, 1907, to the 31st October, 1910, with the names, rank, ages and pay of each of the men; (c) the number of men discharged or who have left the police force in the Transvaal since the 1st March, 1907, to the 31st October, 1910; and M) the names and rank of those men in the police force in the Transvaal who have since the 1st June last applied for their discharge by purchase or otherwise, such return further to set forth the reasons given for the making of the applications and to furnish a list of those applications granted.

seconded.

said he would be only too pleased to afford all the information desired by the hon. member.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from Helen Crewe and 7,211 others, praying that, the laws of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope regarding the age of consent may be brought into conformity with the laws of the other Provinces of the Union by raising such age to 16 years, presented to the House on the 8th inst., be referred to the Government for inquiry and report.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for a return showing:(a) The number of cattle imported into the Western Transvaal from the Cape Province during the period January 1, 1910, to date, and (b) the number of cattle imported from the Orange Free State into the Western Transvaal during the same period.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved:“ That in the opinion of this House it is highly desirable that the Commission to be appointed under section 118 of the South Africa Act 1909, for the purpose of inquiring into the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the Provinces, should be so appointed without further delay.” He said that when the Prime Minister announced, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Henderson), that it was the inteition of the Government to put off or delay the appointment of the Commission as laid down in the Act of Union to adjust the financial relations between the Central Government and the Provincial Councils, he thought that many members in the House heard that announcement with very great surprise. He was perfectly certain that members in this House and a good many people in the country heard it with very great disappointment, because lie took it that most people in this country certainly in this Province and in Natal, would like to see the Provincial Councils established as early as possible on sound and proper lines. He might state for the information of the Government that its policy of centralisation did not meet with be approval of the people. He knew one case where the Government had actually ordered an institution in Cape Town to send up a return to Pretoria of any applications they might have for billets and so forth. Now, that institution happened to work under its own Act. It was administered by a Board of most influencial men, and the Government had no right to interfere, and if the Board followed his advice they would simply treat the application of the Government with the contempt it deserved. In other respects the Government had interfered, and asked for information in regard to small finnicky details, which he would not go into at the present moment. Furthermore, applications had to be sent to the Minister which ought to be dealt with on the spot by the local official, who knew all the circumstances. He knew of a case where an application was made I in connection with the foreshore, which took some weeks before permission was got from Pretoria, whereas it might have been decided within very short notice by the local official. The policy of the Government of this extreme centralisation or referring everything to the Minister for decision was creating profound dissatisfaction. Everybody who was acquainted with large public affairs knew that if one was to get the best out of men and produce contentment, one must be content to lay down general principles and leave the administration of these principles to be carried out by the men on the spot, who knew the circumstances of the case and the country. Furthermore, so far as he could see, the Administrator, who had been appointed under the Act of Union, had very little power indeed, and appeared to be bound by the instructions of some Minister. He had to wire for this and that, and nothing could be done without instructions from some Minister or other. His object in bringing forward this motion was to get the Provincial administrations started on proper lines, and to put an end to the present policy of the Government of centralisation. Until the financial relations between the Central and Provincial Governments were properly adjusted, until they knew what revenues were going to be assigned to them, the Provincial Councils, the Administrators, and the Executive Committees had absolutely no power at all. He referred hon. members to clause 118 of the South Africa Act, and said that while the present state of affairs continued, and until the financial relations between the Central Government and the Provincial Councils were properly fixed, the latter could not spend a sixpence. In fact, under the present state of affairs, the Provincial Councils had not as much power as any small Municipality. A Municipality could levy a rate and spend it as it liked, but the Provincial Councils could not spend a penny without the consent of some Minister. This state of affairs had got to continue until the Commission for which he had now moved, and which was to be appointed as early as possible, had been appointed, and had reported. As matters stood at present, all initiative was taken out of the hands of the Administrators, Executive Committees, and Provincials. They could not undertake work without the leave of some Minister. He thought that everyone would admit that it was intended by the Convention that this Commission should be appointed at the earliest possible moment. Of course, it was anticipated that the Commission would take a considerable time to report, and for that reason a special clause was put in to cover that. It was, however, the intention of the Convention that the Commission should be appointed at the earliest possible moment. The Provincial Councils had the right to levy direct taxes, but he did not see how the Government could permit them to do that until the relations between the two bodies were properly defined. How was it possible for the Treasurer to reorganise the financial relations of the four Provinces until he knew what the recommendations of the Commission were going to be? He did not see how the Treasurer could arrive at a proper and permanent reorganisation until he had that report before him. In three Provinces of the Union there was no local government outside the towns. That might have been all right when the Government had to look after the affaire of only one Province, but not now. The explanation given by the Prime Minister for his delay was not valid at all. Under clause 85 of the South Africa Act the powers and functions of the Provincial Councils were clearly laid down. That definition would amply be sufficient to guide any Commission. The only point that might be doubtful was in sub-section 4, regarding agriculture, which was exceedingly indefinite. The report of such a Commission would be a very useful guide indeed as to what parts of agriculture should be left to the Provincial Council and what part should be dealt with by the Central Government. Then the report of the Commission would be a very useful guide indeed as to sub-section 12, “generally all matters which are of merely local nature.” He utterly failed to see why, under such circumstances, the Government should delay the appointment of such a Commission for one moment. The explanation of the Government was absolutely invalid, and was entirely against the spirit and intention of the Act of Union, in which the work of the Provincial Council was clearly and distinctly laid down. He had been trying to find some explanation of the delay of the Government, and the only explanation he could find was Government’s extreme centralisation. Government appeared to wish to confine all the power into its own hands. The result would be the formation of a bureaucracy, for Ministers came and went, but the permanent officials always would be there. The result of Government’s action would be to bring the Provincial Councils into discredit, which was certainly not the intention of the Convention. (Hear, hear.) This country was altogether too big to be run from one centre, and eventually there would be a breakdown. The South Africa Act laid-down very clearly the supremacy of the Central Parliament. In that case, what was there to fear? If the Provincial Councils abused their powers, those powers could easily be taken away. Let Parliament leave as much as possible to the local people, who were acquainted with the circumstances. (Hear, hear.) Were they going to run Natal and Namaqualand on the same lines? He hoped Government would take this into consideration—otherwise there would be grave discontent among the people. (Hear, hear.) If some steps were not taken to devolve more on local people, they would have an agitation among the people to annul the Act of Union. (Cheers.)

thought it would be wise that he should rise thus early in the debate, because it was quite clear, to his mind, after the speech of his hon. friend, that a great deal of confusion appeared to exist in the minds of some of their friends opposite with regard to the functions of the Commission. His hon. friend was apprehensive—he said the Government was anxious to centralise. He (Mr. Hull) desired to repudiate that in the strongest manner possible. He would remind hon. members that they adopted one principle at the National Convention—that the Union of South Africa should proceed on a unitary basis as against the Federal principle:(Hear, hear.) Hon. members opposite should not do anything which would break the unitary principle and establish a Federal principle. Let him put the point of view as he and his colleagues understood it. The Government had no desire—and never had any desire—to delay the appointment of that Commission. But he wanted hon. members, as reasonable men, to consider what the position was. Section 118 of the Act of Union said that the Governor-General-in-Council “shall, as soon as may be after the establishment of Union, appoint a Commission.” In listening to his hon. friend, it did seem to him that his (Mr. Jagger’s) mind was considerably confused. He understood him to say that this Commission would be able to make useful recommendations to Government with regard to keeping the accounts of Union.

No—the working of Union.

Even on that point his mind is in a state of confusion. The functions were to determine the financial arrangements between the Union and Provincial Administrations. Another phrase, continued Mr. Hull, was “as soon as possible after the establishment of Union” in section 141. It was rather important as showing what the South African National Convention, and the lawmakers, had in mind when they employed those words. That phrase was totally different, and intended to be different from “as soon as may be” in the other section. He thought the intention was quite clear that as soon as possible after May 31 the Government should proceed to appoint a Commission whose duties would be to inquire into the public services.

But it was not done.

My hon. friend will have an opportunity of speaking afterwards. Continuing, he said that in section 118, an important section, they were dealing with it, and in section 41 the phrase employed was “as soon as may be in each case.” Clearly, under section 41, the meaning of that phrase was this: A census would first of all have to be taken, and after this had been done some time would necessarily have to elapse. The Government would, have to consider figures and would have to determine whether the Commission was to—

Nonsense!

proceeding, said that “as soon as may be” meant that regard must be had for certain circumstances. There was a difference in the two phrases, and “as soon as may be” was not so imperative as “as soon as possible.” There was a discretionary power left to the Governor-General in Council to say whether the Commission was to be appointed immediately after May 31 or take into account the other concurrent circumstances. After May 31 the Government had considered all the other circumstances. It considered the desirability of appointing that Commission there and then; and the strongest evidence of the bona fides of the intentions of the Government was that it had immediately placed itself in communication with His Majesty’s Government in England, and asked it to recommend an Imperial officer to preside over that Commission. That had been done at a quite early date after May 31, and the Government was fully alive to the importance of that Commission, and most anxious that the best possible Imperial officer from His Majesty’s Government should be obtained. A name was suggested by it, which he was not at liberty to disclose at present, but he might say that he felt sure that if that name were disclosed to the House, it would be welcomed by both sides. It was the name of one of the best officers in the public service of England. It had been pointed out at once that section 118 meant that there would be a long job before the Commission; and there could not be a shadow of a question about it if they looked at the language of the section in question that years would probably have to elapse before the Commission sent in its report. The British Government saw the point—that the work which the Commission might involve would require a long period, and said that it was impossible to supply such an Imperial officer for such a period. Hon. members would, therefore, see the reasons which had induced the Government to go rather slow upon that question. They (the Government) argued, rightly or wrongly, that it was far better for them to get to work as far as they possibly could; to get something established already and certain of the functions of the Provincial Councils, as laid down in section 85. as his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had rightly pointed out. The Provincial Council was a new body, and surely hon. members would agree with him that the Government would be very unwise if they proceeded hastily in establishing a Commission which might have injured or affected the smooth working of the Provincial Councils. It was because of the difficulty which had been pointed out, and not the magnitude of the work, that the Government had deliberately said: before that most important Commission was appointed, let them do the spade work first, to see whether they could build something towards that object. He would like the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) to put himself in the position of the Government on May 31. The first point he would put to his hon. friend—he was sure the hon. member had not thought of it—was: how would he have drafted his references to that Commission? (Government cheers.) What points was he going to refer to it? Then, let them suppose his hon. friend were the Commission, and constituted it. He (Mr. Jagger) had had considerable experience in financial matters in South Africa, and claimed, rightly, he (Mr. Hull) thought, to be an authority on finance. Well, what would he have been prepared to recommend on May 31; would he have been prepared, would he be prepared at the present moment, to make recommendations to the Government as to what the financial consideration should be between the two bodies? Was he prepared to say what part of the revenue of the different Provinces should be definitely assigned to these bodies? Would he be prepared to say with regard to education what relations there should be between the Central Government and the Provinces? That question of education was going to be one of the most serious ones so far, as far as the maintenance of education was concerned, in South Africa. The hon. member having alluded to the different systems in vogue in the Provinces with regard to education, whether free or not, asked whether the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) was prepared to make any recommendations on that? The Government was justified in that delay in appointing the Commission, and surely the hon. member was a reasonable man, and did not want the Government to appoint the Commission to sit and twiddle their thumbs and do nothing at all?

What does the Act say the Commission shall do? (Opposition cheers.)

“Institute an inquiry.” (Opposition cheers.) Continuing, the Treasurer said that, speaking for himself, he would say he would be only too pleased to have appointed the Commission on May 31, because these Commissions were always useful buffers between Government and Parliament. (A laugh.) He did want hon. members opposite to be very careful; they did not surely want a Commission to be appointed, and not know what its work was going to be? It was impossible merely to switch the Union machine on May 31, and think that it was going to work smoothly all at once.

said that the greatest danger that confronted the Act of Union was the relation between the Provincial Councils and the Central Government. There was an attempt, a natural attempt, to read the Act in a different way to what was intended, and, of course, people who were connected with the old governments were naturally suspicious, and every reasonable act of the Government, though every act might be perfectly reasonable, was taken as a blow at one Province or another. They saw that sort of thing every day in the Press. That was the dangerous spirit that had to be faced. Everything depended on the proper working of the Provincial (Councils. How were the Provincial Councils to start to work unless on a sound financial basis? How were they to be started on a sound financial basis unless there was a preliminary inquiry? He, like the hon. gentleman who had spoken on the matter, had had something to do with the framing of the Act. He read the section of the Act, which had been referred to, in a precisely opposite way to the hon. the Treasurer. (Opposition cheers.) When they said“ as soon as possible,” it was left to the Government—it was in their discretion—to say whether it was possible or not. When they said not “may,” but “shall as soon as may be,” it meant that a Commission must be appointed without delay. (Hear, hear.) Naturally, the Provincial Councils must be started to work, and it was important for them to know how they were going to settle the question of the financial relations between the Provincial Councils and the Central Government. One of the greatest dangers that he saw ahead of this country, from a financial point of view, was that these Provincial Councils would constitute themselves into so many people elected for ear-wigging Ministers, and knocking at the door trying to get as large a grant as possible. No revenue, however large, would stand that sort of thing, because they would have no revenue of their own to spend above that amount granted by the central authority. The sole revenue these Councils would deal with would be the grants they obtained from the central body. If the financial relations between the central body and the Provincial Councils were not established, the result would be that each Province would endeavour to get as big a grant as possible from the central authority. And that would open the door to a sort of thing which he imagined they had never contemplated. Now, he was very much struck by what his hon. friend had said with regard to the interpretation of the words “as soon as may be,” in clause 41. If the meaning placed upon the words ‘“as soon as may be” were what the hon. gentleman had said, then the Government might keep them waiting while it was considering the figures of the census. But the Government had not to consider that. That was a matter for the Commission to consider. The words in the Act did not mean that, the Government was to consider these figures. That was not the question. The words in the Act were “as soon as possible.” The Minister for Finance had also cross-examined his hon. friend on the other side. He had asked what recommendations would be made. The whole point of the appointment of a Commission was to find out what these recommendations should be. It was not within the province of the Government to make the inquiry. His hon. friend might be a clever man; but they, when they drafted the Act, thought they were clever, and thought quite a lot of their abilities. The question of the rights to be allocated to the Provincial Councils was argued, and argued very fully, and it was in order to get, the matter settled fairly that this Commission for the purpose of inquiry and report was fixed upon. He did not know why it should be a long job; it would certainly be a very arduous job. The figures were there, and the circumstances of the country were known, and, therefore, he did not see why it should take such a very long time. He had come to the conclusion that the Government’s first thought on the matter was best. They went to the British Government and obtained the services of a good man. It was a pity that they did not continue on their first line of thought. He could see when the Provincial Councils met—as meet they must before long—some trouble, because they would have these people worrying at the central Treasury, which was the place from which all good things would come. The Provincial Councils would be knocking at the door from morning to night, and begging for increased grants. He thought that his hon. friend would find he would have a great deal to put up with. He was sorry his hon. friend had shut the door, had slammed the door— though he had not turned the key—to the appointment of this Commission. He (Mr. Merriman) would urge upon the Government the desirability of setting this body to work as soon as possible—the longer the job, the more necessary it was to get to work at once—and put these Provincial Councils upon an understandable footing. What rights the Provincial Councils had was laid down in the Act of Union within certain limits. He did not see the difficulty there. The great question was to know how to allocate to them certain revenue for them to administer. That would be their revenue, and they would then know how to cut their clothes. He did hope that his hon. friend (the Minister of Finance) would reconsider this question. If he had got hold of a good man, let him bring him out at once. He did not see why this officer should not get to work, and the sooner he got to work the better it would be, in his (Mr. Merriman’s) opinion.

said that, after what had been said by his right hon. friend, he did not think more argument was needed. He began to think that the Minister of Finance must have been responsible for the difference in the wording in the clauses of the Act which he quoted, at the time of the Convention. It would hardly have occurred to anyone that there was any distinction—any real, distinction— between the words, “as soon as may be,” and “as soon as possible.” “As soon as may be” certainly meant that the Government was expected at the earliest possible moment, at any rate, without delay, to appoint this Commission. It was not disputed that the Government had not the power to appoint this Commission, and row came the actual question of appointing the Commission. The point was as to whether the Government was to appoint it at the earliest possible moment, and the Government had given a forced meaning to the words of the Act, and come to the conclusion that it should take time to appoint this body of inquiry. He agreed with what had been said by his hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The Act laid down precisely, and in no uncertain terms, the work that this Commission should do. The natural thing for the Commission to do was to consider the position of the financial relations between these Provincial Councils and the Central Government. It seemed to him the explanation lay in the habit of a certain section of the Ministry wanting to get as much as possible into their own hands. They were all agreed with what had been said that in Union the Federal principle should not be allowed to creep in. But they were not all agreed that the Union Government should not take the appointment of the Commission into its own Hands irrespective of the Union Parliament it was not the first time that they had had to complain against this tendency on a part of a certain section of the Ministry. Over and over again, in the Transvaal Parliament they had protested against what they called the Government’s autocratic tendency, and he hoped that they were not going to have this tendency displayed in the Union Parliament. He hoped that Parliament was going to be supreme, and that hon. members opposite would take to heart the good advice tendered to them by the right hon. gentleman that they would appoint a Commission as soon as possible. If the Commission was going to take a long time, to report, then surely that was a good reason why it should begin its work early. He saw no reason at all why, because the words “annually submit estimates” occurred in the clause, that that was justification for the Government spinning out the time, and delaying the appointment of a Commission. For these reasons he supported the motion.

said that the words in the clause were that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the Provinces. That being so, he would very much like to know from his hon. friend, the member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), in what way this Commission could possibly assist him in obtaining that which he desired—as much autonomy as possible for the various Provinces apart from the Central Government, or, rather, exclusive of the powers of the arbitrary will of the members of the Government. He should very much like his hon. friend to point out in which way this Commission could assist him. He (General Hertzog) wished to point out that the Treasurer was perfectly right when he said that it would have been almost impossible to have appointed the Commission immediately. In fact, it would even that day be unwise to appoint a Commission which was possibly going to last for years. He wished to point out to, his hon. friend clause 85. Among other things, it said that the Provinces should be allowed to deal with matters of agriculture in so far as the Union Parliament left matters to the Provinces. There was another clause from which it would appear that the Treasurer was perfectly right when he said that before a Commission was appointed to deal with the financial relation they must first of all lay down what the ordinary relations should be between the Union and the Provinces. Unless they laid that down, on what basis could this Commission proceed, and how was this Commission going to say that it would propose that such and such provision should be made for the Provinces in regard to agriculture; if first of all the Union Parliament had not settled that agriculture would be left to the Provinces. It was for that reason that the words “as soon as may be” were inserted, and until the ordinary relations between the Union and the Provinces were settled he submitted it would not be advisable to appoint a Commission to decide upon the financial relations between the Union Government and the Councils. He submitted that in spite of what hon. members had said in regard to the autocratic behaviour of the Government the best thing that could possibly be done would be to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

reminded the Government that they had been in office six months, and he asked how long hon. members had to wait to get information of any description. He sincerely sympathised with the members of the Government, because he thought that ever since they had been in office they had been living not only in one crisis, but in perpetual crises. He thought that the year 1910 would go down in the history of the country as a year of administrative chaos and confusion. He would like to say how necessary it was that information should be obtained, because the Minister of Finance had stated that the Commission was going to take years, and if it did he thought there was a very poor outlook for the country. He referred to clause 127 of the Act of Union, which provided that the railways had to be run at cost price within four years of the establishment of Union, and until they got the information they asked for they would not be able to carry out clause 127. He did not think there; should be any delay in appointing this Commission. Hon. members on his side of the House had been chided about asking for published information, but he thought he might use the phrase that it was a very foolish remark of the Treasurer, because all they asked for was this— give them a statement of the consolidated revenue of the various colonies on May 51 last and the position of the various loan Acts. It showed what confusion the affairs of the Minister of Finance were in when he could not give them the position of the Union six months ago. That was a reasonable question, but the Minister of Finance chided them with undue haste. He agreed with the Minister of Finance in one respect, that if the Government wilfully withheld information which it had at hand then the machinery of Union would never work smoothly. (Opposition cheers.)

regretted that he had not been present during the greater part of the debate, and that he had not been able to follow the arguments of the mover or the Treasurer. He had come in in time to see the poor old horses of autocracy and Government crisis trotted out. (Laughter.) They in the Transvaal had session after session listened to this charge of autocracy.

It did you no good.

It made no difference. Continuing, he said they had taken up the position that what South Africa required was strong and good Government, and he hoped—despite all charges of autocracy—South Africa would continue to enjoy good and, strong government. In regard to the rumours which had been in circulation during the past six months of a crisis in the Government, he believed the Cabinet would be quite strong enough to weather any crisis that might arise. (Government cheers.) The position (proceeded General Smuts) was a very simple one. Under the Constitution the Government was bound to appoint a certain Commission. Well, what would be the problem before the Commission? It would be this—on the one hand the Provincial Councils would have to perform certain; functions, and on the other hand the Central Government would have to discharge certain functions. It had been said that the functions of the Provincial Councils, were defined in the Act of Union, but there were certain questions left open, which Government might decide. Take the matter of agriculture. Surely it was quite necessary before they could say what the agricultural functions of the Provincial Councils were going to be that Parliament should first settle the question. Suppose he administration of the Scab or Other Animals Diseases Act in the Cape Province were Submitted to the Provincial Council an enormous financial provision would have at Once to be made to meet those services. That had been the position he had felt all along about this Commission. The Commission would say at once “What are our functions going to be? Is the Scab Act going to be administered by the Provincial Councils?” There was another subject which was left open—matters of merely a local nature. He thought they would have to go much more slowly over this ground than hon. members opposite felt necessary. There were other questions outstanding, which they would have to make up their minds about. That afternoon the question of equalisation of taxation had been raised. Suppose the Natal poll tax remained on the Statute-book; he thought one of the first things which the Commission would do would be to saddle Natal with this poll tax.

The Provincial Council can repeal it.

We have a number of taxes which everybody admits ought to be revised, but before that is done, it is proposed that a Commission Should allocate the finances. The result will be that if hon. members press for a Commission, the Commission will simply consider the existing sources of taxation, and the Provinces will be saddled with taxes, for which they, will have to thank hon. members opposite. We have no sinister motives. We are all determined on both sides of the House to make a success of Union, and I think it is much better for us to see what are the permanent sources of taxation which should survive into Union, and when the functions of the Provincial Councils have finally been settled, allocate to them certain taxes. Then you would have your Provincial Council services put on a proper footing. We do not adopt any hostile attitude at all to the motion, but, we say that the matter requires very careful consideration. I don’t think it will be possible to delay much longer with this Commission —(Opposition cheers)—but before doing so, Government should wait until Parliament has given expression of opinion on certain matters. (Hear, hear.)

said he regretted that the last speaker was not in the House when the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) spoke, because then he would have recognised the weighty arguments used by that gentleman. Opinion was gaining ground in the Cape that it was the intention of Government to concentrate in its hands every possible power, and to fritter away absolutely the powers of the Provincial Councils. The purpose of the Commission was to inquire into the financial arrangements which should exist between the Provinces and the Union, and then Parliament could decide. He hoped hon. members would learn that it was Parliament that governed, and not any particular Ministry which sat on the Government benches. (Laughter.) The Treasurer said that Government was the interpreter of the Act of Union. (Government cries of “No.”) What were they going to do in the meantime? He understood that estimates had been submitted to the Government in connection with the Provincial Councils. Who submitted those estimates to the Government?

The Administrators.

Continuing, said that, according to the Act of Union, the Provincial Council estimates would have to be framed by an Executive Council of the Province concerned. The Ministers of Finance, Justice, and the Interior had referred very strongly to clause 85 and sub-section 4 of that clause, which dealt with agriculture, and stated that the powers of the Provincial Council with regard to that should be the powers which Parliament had delegated to them. His hon. friends had not read the other clauses, which gave very considerable powers to the Provincial Council. Were all the other clauses to wait until the Government had dealt with the agricultural powers of the Provincial Council? Was the Act of Union to be set at naught until the Government brought in a Bui to deal with the powers of the Provincial Council with regard to agriculture? The Act laid down that the Government should give to the Provincial Council a certain sum of money for primary and secondary education, and certain money for carrying it on. The Provincial Council had the power given to it to raise taxation, and that was really what the horn, member (Mr. Jagger) had laid such stress upon, and these were the powers which the people of the Cape Province would like to see exercised. The idea of the appointment of the Provincial Council, and giving it the power to raise money /by taxation was that the jury chosen, which was the representative of the people, should raise taxation by legitimate means as Laid down under clause 85. He dad hope that his hon. friends opposite would not continue to interpret the various clauses of the Constitution, but would allow the various clauses to be carried out as they stood. (Hear, hear.) When the Minister of Finance asked what was the proper thing to refer to the Commission, he would reply that clause 118 was the proper thing to submit, and not to receive certain instructions from the Government with regard to that clause. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the hon. member (Dr. Smartt) and the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) were largely complaining of the results of their own work, as they had been members of the Convention. He had listened with reverence to the Minister of Finance and to his lesson on the difference between “as soon as possible” or “as soon as may be’’—(Laughter)—but the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had contradicted the Minister of Finance. He had looked up the Dutch version of the South Africa Act, which stated “zoodra mogelyk,” which meant “as soon as may be,” “as soon as possible,” to his mind, or “immediately.” So that did not take them any further. Hon. members, who had been members of the Convention, and who had just spoken, contradicted each other. He referred to what had been done in Canada. In conclusion, he moved the adjournment of the debate.

This was agreed to.

The debate was adjourned until Friday.

presented a petition from W. Howe, head turnkey, Cape Town Gaol, praying that he may be allowed to contribute to the Pensions Fund for the period January 1, 1892, to December 51, 1893, during which he was on daily pay previous to his being placed on the fixed establishment, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. ALEXANDER, seconded by Dr. HEWAT, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from A. G. Dalton, of Rondebosch, who served under the Cape Government as assistant engineer, district engineer, and afterwards as assistant engineer-in-chief, from 1875 to November, 1910, with two short breaks, praying for special consideration of his case, and relief.

On the motion of Sir H. JUTA, seconded ‘by Dr. HEWAT, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from E. Kelly, lately gaoler, at Humansdorp, who served from 1896-1909, praying that a break of four months in his service may be condoned for pension purposes, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. MARAIS, seconded by Dr. NEETHLING, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from D. A. J. Beattie, who served under the late Cape Government for nearly 25 years in various capacities, and was retired in 1909 on a pension of £45 owing to ill-health, praying for an increase of pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. SEARLE, seconded by Mr. OLIVER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mary Macdonald, who entered the Education Department as teacher in 1902, praying that a break in her service of one year and a half may be condoned, or for other relief.

On the motion of Mr. LOUW, seconded by Mr. VAN EDDEN, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from T. C. Mulligan, who served as a blacksmith on the Cape Government Railways and Table Bay Harbour Board for over 15 years, but in 1905, owing to a paralytic stroke, was discharged with a gratuity of £54 2s. 8d., praying for a pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Sir H. JOTA, seconded by Mr. JAGGER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from C. G. Rush, tablet foreman,: Gape Government Railways, who entered the service in 1897, praying that a break of one year may be condoned, or for other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HE WAT, seconded by Mr. ODIVER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Boyce Skota, who served as police constable and interpreter in several Magistrates’ Courts from 1877 to 1880, when he was dismissed, and afterwards as a letter-carrier in the Post Office, Kimberley, from May, 1889, to March, 1906, when he was retired on pension, praying for recognition of his previous ten years’ service and an increased pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. OLIVER, seconded by Dr. HEWAT, the petition was referred to the select Committee on Pension, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Henrietta Cullinan, widow of the late J. J. Cullinan, who served in the Cape Mounted Rifles and Cape Police from 1880 to 1901, when he was retired on pension, and died in 1907, praying the House to consider her circumstances, and grant her a pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. OLIVER, seconded by Dr. WATKINS, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

announced that he had appointed Mr. H. S. van Zyl as Parliamentary draughtsman. (Hear, hear.)

read a return dealing with the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Transvaal Police who had been retrenched or who had resigned between May 51, 1910, and November 1, 1910: Retrenched, 2; resigned, 1; purchased discharge, 67; time expired. 9; deserted. 9; died, 7; discharged as unsuitable, 34; discharged as medically unfit, 5; discharged for false particulars in affidavits and statements, 17.

(1) Of land surrendered in terms of section 21 of Act 40 of 1895 (Gape), (2) land resumed in terms of section 22 of Act 40 of 1895 (Cape), (3) of church, school, and trading sites granted in the Transkeian Territories in terms of Proclamation No. 103 of 1900, as amended by Proclamation 126 of 1905 (Gape).

said he found that the preparation of the return would not take quite so long as he thought it would, but the cost would be £20. Whether the mover thought that the information would be worth £20, he did not know.

said he did not lay much stress on the expense, as the return would a valuable one.

The motion was agreed to.

in moving, the second reading of the Interpretation Bill, explained that at the present time there was an Interpretation Act in each of the four colonies. It was necessary that these laws should be assimilated as soon as possible. There was no provision in the Bill which was not contained in one or other of the four Acts, unless it be, perhaps, one or two provisions which had been taken over from the most recent English Acts. It was really necessary that there should be an Act of this kind, one-reason being that in the past it had happened through oversight that technical terms had not been defined, with the result that this led to litigation.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Monday next.

asked what the estimated cost of the Census would be.

said his hon. friend would be able to see that when the Estimates were laid on the table; he had forgotten the amount for the moment.

moved that the words “or to unemployment” be inserted at the end of subsection 5 of clause 8 (Regulations). He said he thought that it would be convenient for the Governor-General to have power to make regulations providing for statistics from time to time of unemployed, and more particularly those who were dependent upon the unemployed.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether or not the Government intended to appoint a statistician in connection with the Census.

said he thought it would be necessary sooner or later to take into consideration the question of appointing a competent statistician

On clause 8,

moved the following amendment: In line 40, after “Act,” to insert “and such regulations shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament, and shall not become law until ten days have elapsed after the date of such presentation, provided always that any amendment within such ten days brought forward by way of motion in each House shall first have been inserted, modified, or rejected by both Houses.” He said that he wished to put himself right with the House, and the Minister of the Interior in regard to the objection he made the Other day that firms should he called upon to make a return of their capital. He had since found that the Minister of the Interior had got the suggestion from the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, but, nevertheless, he did not agree with it. The object of his amendment was that the regulations should be brought before Parliament before they became law. They were very far reaching, and the House should have an oportunity of expressing an opinion upon them if it wished to. The last Census regulations in the Cape were laid on the table of the House, and it was quite right that they should be, because it was found that as a rule the officials wanted to go into tremendous details, and perhaps it would be advisable to have some check.

supported the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Those in the Transvaal had had home experience in regard to regulations. In the case of the Transvaal Education Act, and the Police Act, two very important measures, the Ministers took to themselves the power of making regulations when, where, and how they liked, and if it were necessary he could quote some of them to show now utterly unfair they were. Before they agreed to any regulations being enforced, the House ought to know what they were Mr. E. H. WALTON (Port Elizabeth, Central) said he would suggest that the Minister of Justice consider the amendment with a view to applying it to the Interpretation Act, and so make it general. They had been accustomed in the Cape to have their regulations laid on the table, so that members might have an opportunity of seeing them before they were enforced.

said that he would be pleased to hear any amendment that might be made, but, of course, he could not say whether he would be prepared to accept it.

said that in spite of what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had said, they in the Transvaal had passed laws in connection with which regulations were essential. He undertook that before these regulations were put into force they would be laid on the table of both Houses. He hoped that that would satisfy the hon. member.

said that in view of the assurance given by the Minister he would withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was thereupon withdrawn.

Before the schedule was put,

said that he would like to ask a question which appertained to clause 5. It seemed to him to be rather an awkward position that the Government should have the power to proclaim a Census in the “Gazette,” a power which he thought too large, and which should be by resolution of Parliament.

asked whether the right hon. member referred to clause 3, because they had passed that clause.

said that he was prepared to answer the question.

said that that could be done at a later stage.

When?

At the third reading.

The Bill was reported, with one amendment.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the amendment be at once considered.

The motion was agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to.

repeated his question.

The right hon. member will be able to put any question on the Bill at the third reading.

The third reading was set down for Friday.

I would now like to ask whether it is intended by this Bill to give power to the Government at any time to proclaim in the “Gazette” that a Census should be taken without obtaining the consent of Parliament? That is, as far as I can make out, the intention of the Bill.

The answer to the question asked by my right hon. friend is that far the ordinary Census it would be quite right and proper, if necessary, to settle it by resolution of Parliament, but here, as I have already stated, at the second reading of the Bill, we are dealing not only with the decennial, but with the quinquennial census, which, under the South Africa Act, is to be held at stated intervals, beginning in 1911, and every five years thereafter. Therefore, it may be necessary to take a quinquennial Census in future without waiting for the consent of Parliament. I dare say that no Government in South Africa will abuse-its power, and hold the Census in the seventh or eighth year instead of every fifth.

asked whether the centennial Census would to taken on the same date as that of the rest of the Empire.

I am always willing to fall in with the rest of the world. He was understood to add that maybe the Empire might be wrong, and then they could go one better. (Laughter.)

moved the following amendment: “And the absence from duty on any such non-business day of any person whose services are engaged in any commercial, mercantile, industrial, or other business employment shall not afford legal grounds for the dismissal or suspension from service of such person, or for any other disciplinary or corrective treatment, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the contract or agreement under which such person’s services were engaged.”

asked whether the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment would explain his object?

said that in spite of the assurance given him by the Hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill the other afternoon, he preferred a bird in the hand rather than two in a bush. Their contention was the workman had as much right to enjoy a public holiday as anyone else. He had endeavoured to go upon the lines of clause 5 in framing the amendment. They desired to establish (he principle that a workman had a right to absent himself from his business on a holiday, without his principal having ground to resent it. They had been told that all the mines paid their men on Christmas Day and Good Friday, but, as far as his information went, this was not correct. Some paid for Christmas Day, but hardly any for the other holiday. His hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Lionel Phillips) would probably tell them that the mines and the country would lose so much per year on this account, and that his (Mr. Creswell’s) interest was measured by the amount they got out of the mines. But he did not pretend to argue that they were without interest in this matter, even if it was not as large as the interest of his hon. friend the member for Yeoville. These were the views of the men on the gold-fields, who did not’ get all the enjoyment they should out of life. They wished to make a beginning to establish that a public holiday was a public holiday, and put the employee on the same footing as his employer.

said that while he sympathised with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell), he did not think it the right time, if he wished to attain the object in view. He would say however, that he did not agree with these spasmodic holidays, and would be pleased to support, at the proper time, a prolonged holiday for these employees each year.

said that he claimed to be a representative of labour just as much as his friend the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell). He was in favour of a prolonged holiday, rather than a lot of spasmodic holidays.

Might I ask if the Government is going to accept the amendment? (Ministerial cries of “No.”)

said he would like to ask a question. The Minister of the Interior told them that an opportunity of discussing this question would be given when the mining regulations were before the House. But he pointed out that the Mining Bill only affected part of the community, and this amendment was more general in effect. He would like the hon. gentleman to realise this position. Supposing on a public holiday, the driver of a vehicle decided to have a holiday, he could not be dismissed for that. Then if, on the railway, the man in charge of the signals decided ‘to have a holiday, it herd could be no redress. The amendment was all very well from a theoretical point of view. He believed he represented the employees at the Pretoria Printing Office, whose holidays were taken away from them by the Government of which his hon. friend was a member. They had not got these holidays back. He would like to know if the Government would put sympathy into practice, and give these men their holidays, and pay them? He would like to know if the Government would take into consideration the position of the porter and the policeman who worked harder on holidays than other days, and who, when they did get holidays, wore not paid for them?

pointed out that there was a large number of people in the country engaged in providing food. He believed in miners having holidays, but the proposal must be made in a practical fashion.

said it had been suggested that miners should have holidays on full pay. He found that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), who was very anxious that miners should be paid for holidays, was the editor of a newspaper in Cape Town. Well, the compositors in Cape Town were paid weekly, and when they took a day’s holiday, they lost their pay. (Laughter.) Thus, the hon. member while being very solicitous regarding the miners, when it came to his own interests, was very careful to see that the compositors, when they did not work, did not get any pay. (Laughter.) As to the railway men, the Cape system did treat its men fairly and liberally, but the Transvaal Railway, with its enormous surplus, sweated its men.

Three-and-four pence a day.

said he believed the administration of the Cape Railways by the hon. member opposite (Mr. Sauer) was certainly an example in regard to the men, which the late Government of the Transvaal should have copied. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) had had a good deal to say about the mining industry and the representation of white labour in that House. He (Sir George) believed that, white labour had more representatives in that House that the three hon. members on the cross-benches, and he would advise the born member for Jeppes to learn more about labour questions and holidays. (Laughter.) The mining industry, so far as holidays were concerned, would fully compare with any private trade and with the Transvaal Railways. If the matter were dealt with under the mining regulations and if one or two more days were required, he was sure that those who represented the mining industry in that House would offer no objection. There was, however, no colour line in this matter, and if the proposal were agreed to, every farm servant could take off his hat to his employer and say: “I am going to have 14 days’ holiday.” The proposition was practically impossible.

maintained that the amendment was not an unreasonable one. It seemed wrong that Government should proclaim a holiday, and then debar a man from having it. Surely 12 days in a year were not too long for a man to have as a holiday. He took exception to the remarks made by the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) as to the people they on the cross-benches represented; but he would tell the hon. member that they represented the majority of the voters in their constituencies.

said that the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir Geo. Farrar) had said that he (the speaker) was an employer of labour, but he wished to say that his position was not that of an employer. He was an employee when he was not out of work. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Georgetown had also referred to the printing trade and he (the speaker) should like to say that when he was in his constituency he had a good deal of printing to be done, and wished it to be done by one of the best offices in Port Elizabeth. He was informed by the Typographical Union, however, that there was not a single office in Port Elizabeth that was paying the proper rate of wages.

Not true. (Laughter.)

My friend save “not true,” He is perfectly correct, and that was just what I was going to say. Proceeding, he said that it was perfectly true that there was one small office, but the great daily press of Port Elizabeth was sweating its men at the present time. He was sorry to say it, and if the hon. member for Georgetown wished to refer to the printing trade instead of casting his eyes over to his (the speaker’s) side of the House, he should cast his eyes at right angles to himself. As regards the railway men he said the hon. member for Georgetown was for some time a member of the Inter Colonial Council and Railway Board, and having sweated the railway men in the Transvaal, he now came here and tried to complain on behalf of the men he had sweated. The member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) was in exactly the same position. Did he try to put the matter of holidays right? No

rose to a point of order. He said that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) was wandering from the point under discussion, and was wasting time.

said that he was only referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Georgetown. In fact, he had only been courteous enough to follow the hon. member for Georgetown in his meanderings He (the speaker) was not wandering, he was dealing with the question before the House, which was the question of holidays for two sets of men— the men employed in the printing trade and the men employed in the railway service. As far as the men in the printing trade were concerned, they were paid by piece-work, which was an unsatisfactory system, and one which should be got rid of as soon as possible. As far as the railway men were concerned, neither the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) nor the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) had done anything for them when they were in power, but he was confident that the Minister of Railways would see that the matter was put right. He wished to point out to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) that his amendment would be unworkable. There was no general rule in regard to railway men’s holidays; he did not think that such a rule would be workable. He trusted that the amendment would be brought up at a later date, and hoped that the privileges which prevailed on the old Cape Railways would be extended throughout the Union. He did not think that the amendment in its present form was practicable, and, therefore, hoped the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) would withdraw it, and bring it up at a future date.

said that the informant of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) was not correct when he said that there was no standard rate of wages in the printing trade in Port Elizabeth. The whole of his printing in connection with his election bore the stamp or the Typographical standard rate of wages. As regards the dispute in one of the printing firms in Port Elizabeth, he was in a position to say that that was only temporary; and that the standard rate of wages was paid.

said he took exception to the statements made by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

said that the hon. member for Georgetown could hardly be held responsible in the matter of railways in the Transvaal, in view of the fact that he left the Railway Board four years ago. He wished to point out to the mover of the amendment that his proposal would have no effect.

said he would like to know whether the Government had any views on this question at all. They had heard nothing from them as to what their views were. He thought that the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) could serve his purpose better if an amendment were moved to the effect that trades and businesses which were not absolutely necessary should not be carried on such public holidays, just as they were not carried on Sundays. He would like to know whether the Government had any voice on the matter at all; would they vote in favour of, or against, the amendment?

said that the view the Government took was that however much they might sympathise with some of the objects which the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) had in view, the present amendment was not a workable one, nor did he think that was the proper place for such an amendment. Hon. members would see that there was no penalty clause in the Bill whatever, and what happened on these holidays was left to the common-sense of the people. They did not say that on those days everything should come to a dead stop. In England there were only four statutory holidays, because it was felt in a country like that, with important concerns going on, one could not call a halt every time. It was not possible for the Government to accept the amendment.

said that he took it that the opinion just expressed was the collective opinion of the Government, which had sat silent up till then. They on the Opposition side were anxious to hear the voice of the Government, and glad to have heard it, because the previous afternoon they had heard three voices from the Government—and they were all different. (Laughter.) The hon. member hoped that there would not be any recriminations, because if they were going to turn themselves into a mutual recrimination society they would do very little business, and much had to be done.

in reply, said that he intended to press the amendment, which did not mean that ell work was to stop on a holiday, hut that those workmen who wished to have a holiday could have one. The amendment expressed the right of a workman to have a holiday as well as the man who employed him. As to what the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir Geo. Farrar) had said as to their (the Labour members) having changed ground, that was not the case at all, for they contended most firmly that these public holidays should not put a loss on a man. The workman bad to pay his bills at the end of the month whether there had been any holidays or not. As to what the hon. member had said about his (the speaker’s) “impracticable schemes,” he remembered that one of them had been the repatriation of the Chinese from the Rand. (Minsterial cheers.)

said that they would have to take into consideration that the effect of the Bill would not be for a few days, but for years. They had not only to deal with white labour, but also with coloured labour, and in the country districts they depended almost solely upon the latter. But they knew that when they got one holiday, coloured labourers generally made three of it—(laughter)—land so if that amendment were agreed to, he saw great difficulties in future and grave consequences to the landowners. They all sympathised with the labouring people of the country, but the effect of the amendment would, he thought, be extremely harmful.

The motion was then put.

declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

had the following new clause 6 on the paper: “No public servant shall be deprived of his pay in connection with public holidays merely on account of being on leave immediately before or after the holiday in question, unless the period of such leave extends over a period of more than one week.” Mr. Fremantle thought that possibly it would be better if he moved in this direction when a Superannuation Bill came before the House. If the Minister thought that course better he would withdraw.

replied that such a Bill would be before the House shortly.

said that this was one of the promises which the hon. member for Uitenhage had given his constituents; but though personally he (the speaker) did not see what the Superannuation Bill had to do with the deduction of holidays, the principle propounded in the amendment was a sound one, and if the hon. member kept it on the paper he (Mr. Walton) would give it his support.

said that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Mr. Walton) thought he was going to embarrass him (Mr. Fremantle) by embarrassing the Government, he was making a mistake. He (the speaker) would not forget the matter, and would bring it up at a future date, when he hoped he would get the support of his hon. friend (Mr. Walton). He believed that so long as his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) was in office, the matter would be all right; but it was possible that circumstances might alter cases. (Opposition laughter.) He (Mr. Fremantle) would bring the matter up before the end of the session.

said that if the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) was not going to move that clause he would. It was not fair that a man should be deprived of the advantage of a public holiday if it happened to occur during his period of leave.

supported the proposal, which he pointed out affected all public servants, and not only railway men.

also supported the proposal, which he described as a practical one.

asked the Chairman’s ruling on the following point:“If the motion is put, and is rejected by the House, will it be competent for the House or Committee to reintroduce the same motion in another Bill in the same session?”

Yes; I think it is quite competent in another Bill.

said he would not accept the amendment. It was impossible to deal with that matter on a question of holidays, and it must be dealt with in a Railway Bill.

Will you accept the principle?

I think it is a fair principle, but this Bill is not the right one in which to make such a provision. On behalf of the Government, I find it is not possible to accept it, and I hope it will be moved on another and a better occasion.

said he was not in a position to say whether Government would, or would not, accept the principle. However, the matter would receive fair and—he might say—sympathetic consideration, and quite on the lines on which he had dealt with similar matters. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) thought he would score off the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) in this matter, but the former would not be serving the cause of the railway men in the attitude he had taken up. When the matter came up it would receive full consideration. He had seen the Auditor-Ceneral about the matter, and that gentleman told him that the law prohibited railway men being paid under the circumstances. He hoped that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) would see that the best interests of those concerned would best be served by not pressing the matter.

said that if the hon. member for Uitenhage had not moved in the matter he would! have done so himself. He wanted to see that the promises the hon. member made to the men at Uitenhage were kept, and that was an opportunity to give effect to what was a fair proposition. Therefore, he was not prepared to withdraw. He did not consider that a Superannuation Bill was the correct Bill in which they should deal with a question of this kind.

Railways Service Bill.

Well, I have not seen it. Where is it? I don’t know whether we are to have a Railways Service Bill.

was understood to say that the Government intended to introduce a Railways Service Bill.

said that if he could get a definite assurance from the Minister of Railways or the Minister of the Interior that he admitted that this principle was a fair one, and that it would be embodied in the Railways Service Bill, then he would be prepared to withdraw the amendment. Promises were given on the platform, but were not being kept in the House. If the principle was considered a fair one, why should not it be embodied in legislation? But if the Minister now refused to say that it was a fair principle and refused to embody it, where were they? He would not withdraw the amendment, but leave the Government if they approve of the principle, to vote for it, and if they did not, to vote against it.

said he did not know where the promise was made. Certainly no such promise was ever made by him. He was understood to say further that the House would be given an opportunity shortly to consider the question.

said that they were dealing not only with the harbours and railways, but also with temporary daily-paid men in the public service, and some provision should be made for them. Provision could not be put in a Superannuation Bill. He appealed to hon. members not to throw away their election speeches. He also appealed to the House to go beyond railways and harbours, and include every man in the employ of the Government.

explained to the House that the point raised was due to him, and he wished to state that temporary men did not in any case get paid for holidays, and he did not propose that temporary men, who were not now considered to have a right to be paid for holidays, should be paid. He was not aware that there was any need to deal with any section of the public service other than the railways; and he proposed to deal exclusively with the railways. He only hoped that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Mr. Walton), would accept the assurance of the Minister of Railways that a full opportunity would be given shortly to the House to decide on this question. He (the speaker) accepted that assurance, and if it were not carried out, it would be very easy for one to make an opportunity by introducing a Bill. He intended to see that the matter came before the House this session, but he saw no reason for pressing the matter at the present stage. If it had not been for him, nothing would have been heard of the matter.

The amendment was put and defeated.

moved to delete Ascension Day, and substitute the 1st of May.

said that he refused to take the amendment seriously. If they considered that the bulk of the people were in favour of observing the day in question, and that this was a Christian country, surely they would refuse to pass the amendment.

said that having regard to what the Minister of the Interior said in introducing the Bill, he had no alternative but to ask that Ascension Day be deleted, and the 1st of May substituted. He referred to the observance of the 1st of May as a holiday in other countries, and said that in some parts the workers absolutely refused to work. He hoped that the workers of South Africa would not be compelled to refuse to work on the 1st of May.

said that they were in South Africa, and were not providing for holidays which were observed in other countries or in France. He hoped that the amendment would be withdrawn.

asked whether the mover would like to see South Africa converted into another France, where the Government had to order out an army so as to be able to keep those Who celebrated May Day within bounds. He extremely regretted the fact that such an amendment should have been introduced, and trusted that it would be rejected by a large majority.

said that they merely wished to provide for a day which was more convenient than Ascension Day—a day which was not observed by many.

The motion was negatived.

moved, as an amendment, that King’s Birthday be celebrated on June 3, and that Victoria Day, May 24, be eliminated. He thought that they should celebrate King’s Birthday on the proper date, and as to Victoria Day, while they all revered the memory of Queen Victoria, yet if they celebrated the birthday of one of their former rulers, why not that of others?

hoped that they would not interfere with May 24, by which they revered the memory of Queen Victoria. He had originally intended to move that Ascension Day should be eliminated, but as he found that the feeling of many members of the House was so strongly against that elimination, he came to the conclusion, in consideration of their feelings, that he should drop his amendment. His suggestion was that they should add June 3, for he held that the King’s Birthday, if observed at all, should be observed at the proper date. To his mind, it was most improper to put it back to May 24. If there were twice as many birthdays to celebrate as there were at present, he would still urge June 3 being celebrated as King’s Birthday. If they added that day, they would have 11 days altogether. Well, let it; there would be no outcry either from the English or the Dutch people of the country. If they could not observe the day on the proper date, let them rather not observe it at all.

said that for once he was able to support the hon. member for Troyeville because that hon. member knew the wishes of the commercial section of the community, who were the people complaining about too large a number of holidays. The Committee would therefore be on perfectly safe ground if it took the hon. member’s advice on a matter such as this. He trusted the Minister would provide for Victoria Day, Union Day and King’s Birthday.

said that it was the commercial community that had to bear the burden, and the complaint was that there were too many holidays, and that several of these came about the same time. If this amendment was carried they would have another bunch of holidays in close proximity to each other. He thought that May 24 should be retained, though he deprecated the inclusion of June 3 in the list. In conclusion, he said he hoped that the Minister of the Interior would stick to the schedule which he had placed before the House. (Hear, hear.)

said that though he was somewhat in favour of the inclusion of June 3, he was of the opinion that those who had spoken in favour had not made out a very strong case. It was only right, however, that the birthday of His Majesty the King should be celebrated seeing that His Majesty was the living symbol of unity in the British Empire. He would say that if he saw that sentiment on the question was especially strong, he would be prepared to fall in with the wishes of the majority.

said that if the House was not altogether wishful of observing the King’s birthday on the King’s Birthday, why should not the day of celebration be moved further on, say, some date between May 31 and the end of October.

said he did not think it would be taken as a mark of disrespect if the King’s Birthday were celebrated on another specified date. He pointed out, however, that sentiment on the question of celebrating the King’s Birthday was particularly strong. At the same time, he did not quite agree with the suggestion that the celebration of the Sovereign’s birthday should clash with May 24. He was of opinion that Union Day might be moved to November 4, which was after all, the real day of Union, as it was the day on which Parliament met, and that the King’s Birthday should be celebrated on the first Monday in August, as an hon. member had suggested. He thought the wishes of everybody would be met if the Minister for the Interior would agree to add just one more day to the list. Perhaps the Minister might take the matter into consideration between the time the Bill passed out of committee and the third reading was taken.

said he was willing to meet the wishes of members on this point, and he thought that the first Monday in August would suit the purpose. As he did not think there was any necessity for delay, he would move that the words, “and King’s Birthday” should be struck out from the schedule in order that an amendment putting the matter right might be moved at a later stage.

said the King’s Borthday should be celebrated on the proper date, on Victoria Day or not at all. He did not agree with the suggestion of the Minister for the Interior that the King’s Birthday should be celebrated in August.

agreed with the last speaker.

said he differed from the Minister because, though the event had not yet occurred since Union, he felt sure that the Governor-General would proclaim a holiday in any case on King’s Birthday.

amendment was withdrawn.

The amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

moved that after Victoria Day be inserted “and Empire Day.” That would bring the fact to the notice of the school children that, they were connected with the Empire.

hoped that the amendment would not be pressed. All over South Africa the day was called Victoria Day, and thus bore the name of the Sovereign who reigned over the Empire when it went through its greatest crises. He trusted no invidious distinction would be made between Victoria Day and Empire Day.

withdrew the amendment.

moved the insertion, after Union Day, of the words “King’s birthday (second Monday in August).”

suggested that the day should be celebrated on the first Monday in August, which was a bank holiday in Great Britain.

suggested that the day should be called Arbor Day. (Laughter.) He was sorry that the hon. members so little appreciated the importance of having an arbor day.

once more pleaded for 3rd June.

said that August was the month for tree-planting and that therefore the holidays should be fixed at as early a date as possible in that month.

supported having the holiday on the first Monday in August.

said he was quite prepared to accept the suggestion. He thought they might fall into line over this matter. (Hear, hear.) He would, therefore, move that the Fling’s birthday be observed on the first Monday in August.

This was agreed to.

said that he supported the observance of Dingaam’s Day, on the ground that December 16 denoted the triumph of civilisation over barbarism and heathenism,

suggested that Dingaan’s Day be observed on the first Monday in October.

was opposed to the proposed change.

The Bill was reported, and the consideration of the amendments set down for Friday.

withdrew his proviso to clause one, which was as follows: “Provided that such’ appeal shall not affect anything already done or rights already acquired.” He stated that his amendment was met by the Interpretation Bill.

In clause 3.

moved as an amendment: In line 12, omit all the words from “at any time” to the end of the clause, and substitute “within five years immediately preceding the date of his application: (a) He has resided for a period of not less than two years in the Union or in any colony or territory included at the date of his application within the Union; or (b) he has been in the service of the Crown, or has obtained a certificate or letters of naturalisation in any British colony or possession, which certificate or letters remains or remain in full force and effect.”

hoped that the hon. member would not press his amendment, as it might lead to invidious distinctions. This was essentially a matter for reciprocity.

who hoped that the amendment would be accepted, said that as the Bill stood, the Minister might refuse to grant letters of naturalisation to anyone. In case reciprocity existed, the Minister would be obliged to grant naturalisation here to a person who had been naturalised, say, in Canada. There was a distinction between reciprocity and the provisions of the present Bill, and under the circumstances, he failed to see why any respectable person who came from other parts of the British Empire, produced his naturalisation papers, and who intended settling down here, should have to wait for two years.

said that the Minister of the Interior’s objections as to reciprocity could be met by the following proviso, which he would move: “Provided that such British colony or possession affords similar treatment to the certificate of naturalisation granted in the Union.” There was no question at all of “demanding letters of naturalisation.” The Bill would show hon. members that the whole matter was one of grace on the part of the Minister, and the latter might refuse the application for naturalisation from anybody, whether he was a Chinaman, or came from Hong Kong, or any other part of the world.

moved that progress be reported.

This was agreed to.

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

presented a petition from A. M. Middleton, late clerk in the Chief Accountant’s Department, South African Railways, who, prior to his entering the Railway Department, served in the Attorney-General’s Department, from June, 1890, to December, 1892, and was retired in November, 1910, praying that the break in his service from January, 1892, to June, 1894, may be condoned, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. BROWN, seconded by Dr. MACNEILLIE, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from J. C. Croxford, a coppersmith in the Cape Government Railway Department, who entered the service in December, 1890, praying for permission to contribute to the pension funds for the period December 2, 1890, to June 30, 1895, or for other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from J. Scott, a chargeman in the erectors’ shop, Salt River Works, who entered the service on July 15, 1882, praying for permission to contribute to the pension funds from July 1, 1886, to June 30. 1888, or for other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. WHITAKER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from H. O’Connor, boilermaker’s foreman, Salt River Works, who entered the service in December, 1881, and became a contributor to the pension funds in July, 1888, praying that he may be allowed to contribute to the said funds from July, 1886, to June, 1888, or for other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HEWAT, seconded by Mr. WYNDHAM, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

as Chairman, brought up the Second Report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Second report of the Select Committee, appointed by orders of the House of Assembly, dated-the 7 th and 8th November, 1910, on Standing Rules and Orders, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, Dr. Jameson, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Juta, and Mr. Watt.

Your committee, having considered the question referred to them of the pensions or gratuities to be paid to those officers of the Parliaments of the late colonies who are not provided for and who may not be retained either in the Executive or Parliamentary services of the Union, beg to recommend: That in the event of any of the undermentioned officers of the late Transvaal Parliament not being retained in the Executive Service of the Union, the following awards be made: (a) To C. E. Hawes, Clerk-Assistant of the late Transvaal Legislative Assembly, a pension of £224 7s. per annum, (b) To R. F. Crowther, hall porter, a pension of £40 per annum. (c) To J. J. Naude, assistant messenger of the late Transvaal Legislative Assembly, a gratuity of £50.

Chairman. Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, November 17, 1910.

accordingly gave notice that he would move to-morrow that the report be considered.

laid on the table the Estimates of Expenditure for the ten months ending March 31, 1911. He said that he wished to inform hon. members that the Dutch copies would be ready in a couple of days’ time.

was understood to ask when the detailed Estimates would be ready.

In a few weeks’ time.

May I ask the Hon. the Treasurer whether he is going to refer the Estimates to the Estimates Committee as was done in the Capet

The committee of the whole House?

No, a committee appointed by the whole House.

gave notice that on Monday, November 29, he would move that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates for the ten months ending March 31, 1911. (Cheers.)

repeated his question as to whether the Treasurer was going to move for the appointment of what was known as the Estimates Committee.

No, I do not intend to move for the appointment of the Estimates Committee or the Budget Committee.

May I ask

The hon. member must give notice

I only want to know whether, if I give notice of motion, the Government will give the matter precedence on the paper.

pointed out that the hon. member could not do that on Friday.

Well, Monday, then. If the House has an opportunity of considering this question at an early date, the Government will save time thereby, because otherwise I intend to oppose the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

Do the Estimates which the Hon. the Treasurer has laid upon the table contain a copy of the railway estimates also? Members have not yet had a copy.

The Estimates will be in the hands of all members in a few days.

asked the Minister of Native Affaire whether the Commission appointed in the Orange Free State to inquire into and report upon native affaire, has brought out its report, and, if so, whether the Government intends to lay that report on the table of the House.

Yes. He was understood to add that the report had been completed, and would shortly be laid on the table.

asked the Minister of Mines whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill regulating the hours of work on mines on Sundays?

gave an affirmative reply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will inform the House what steps are being taken to prevent the further spread of East Coast fever and to eradicate it within the Union.

The fencing of farms and the cleansing of cattle from ticks by dipping is also being encouraged. Experience of the disease gained in the Transvaal during the past eight years, where it has been gradually overcome, has proved the efficacy of the measures outlined if properly carried out. I am sure there is no necessity for me to emphasise the seriousness of the disease, but what I should like to impress upon the House is that, though the Government can do a great deal, it cannot do everything, and that, without the co-operation of the public in dealing with the disease, it is helpless. If the farmers will assist us by immediately notifying us of all deaths of cattle, so that the cause of death can be investigated and the disease detected, and by refraining to move cattle themselves within suspected areas and endeavouring to prevent others from doing so, I am convinced the disease could soon be eradicated. Further, farmers can protect their cattle and assist the Government in preventing the spread of the disease by fencing their farms and dipping their cattle. It has been said the natives are to a great extent responsible for the spread of the disease, and that it is hopeless to try and deal with them. With this I do not agree. In the Transvaal we have found that if the natives are well looked after and educated by the Magistrates and the officers of the Native Affaire Department they will co-operate as readily as a white man. The steps taken to deal with East Coast fever are based on the following facts: (1) That the disease is conveyed solely by certain varieties of tick which have become infected by sucking diseased animals; (2) that the ticks do not travel along the ground on their own accord, but must be conveyed by some other agency, which, as far as our experience goes, is almost invariably cattle; infected ticks which have sucked on animals other than horned cattle lose their infection in so doing; (3) that, if an infected area is kept free from cattle for 15 months the infected ticks die off, and the area becomes clean. Accordingly the aim of the Government has been to ascertain exactly where the disease exists, and to restrict movements of cattle within infected or suspected areas, and wherever possible to clear infected areas by slaughter. No movements of cattle are allowed in the neighbourhood of infected or suspected areas except under permit granted by the Resident Magistrate on the advice of the veterinary surgeon. To prevent cattle from being removed from infected areas or cattle from outside such areas being removed on to them, the infected areas are fenced. In order to check and detect movements of cattle in infected or suspected areas, it has been the practice in the Transvaal to brand all cattle within such areas with a brand which identifies the animal with the farm or kraal to which they belong, and it is hoped this system, which has proved very useful, can be extended to Natal and the Native Territories of the Cape.

asked whether the reply, being of such importance, could be printed for the information of members.

was understood to say that this could not be done.

submitted that under Rule 313 this could be done.

pointed out that the rules only applied to papers laid upon the table.

said that the reply would be forwarded to the press for publication. (Hear, hear.)

asked: (a) Whether the building formerly used as a hospital at Leydsdorp, Zoutpansberg, has been let for other purposes, and, if so, what provision the Government proposes to make for dealing with fever cases in the low country this season; and (b) whether it is a fact that the nearest district surgeon now resides at Haenertsburg, and, if so, whether the Government will make provision for a medical officer to reside at Leydsdorp during the present fever season?

So far as this question relates to the hospital at Leydsdorp, I must inform the hon. member that I have no recent information on the subject, and the matter is not one with which I can deal, as the control of hospitals has, by the South Africa Act, been handed over to the Provincial Councils. The question of securing the residence of a medical man in the locality is, however, on another footing, and has been engaging my attention for some time past. I am not yet able to say whether it will be found possible to appoint a district surgeon, owing to the fact that little, if any, private practice offers in that portion of the Zoutpansberg district, but the matter is still under consideration.

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present session to amalgamate the suburbs of the Cape Peninsula?

This is a municipal matter, and in terms of the South Africa Act it should be deal with by the Provincial Council.

asked the Minister of Public Works whether the Government intends during the present session, or in the near future, to place a sum of money on the Estimates for the purpose of building a bridge across the Orange River at Prieska?

said that the estimate for the bridge was £7,000. The Government intended to give the matter further consideration, in order to gauge the requirements of the district, before any decision was arrived at.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he is aware that the people living along the Vaal River, on the Free State side, suffer great inconvenience, because since the war they are not allowed to cross through the Vaal River to the Transvaal and back with their oxen; and (2) whether he is aware that trade is thereby damaged, and whether the Government intends to give the said people more facilities for the future, or to open the drifts?

replied that the prohibition on cattle crossing the Vaal to the Transvaal was proposed by the Late Free State Government, and was still in existence, for the reason that East Coast fever existed in the Transvaal, and in the interests of the Free State it was not desirable that cattle should be allowed to cross into it from the Transvaal. The Government was not prepared to allow cattle from the Free State to cross the Vaal River into the Transvaal and back.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware that certain railway and other officers in certain parts of the country openly supported the candidature of certain candidates by decorating the engines and other parts of the trains with the colours and poster of the said candidates, and, if so, whether he will take steps (1) to forbid such undesirable conduct for the future, and (2) to immediately transfer the officers concerned?

was understood to reply that the Government was making investigation into scome charges of the kind. He did not know whether they might not transfer the men concerned; at any rate, he would inform the House on the point at a later stage.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether any of the employees of the South African Railways are paid ordinary wages on public holidays, and, if so, what classes of employees are so paid and for how many public holidays during the year?

was understood to reply that with very few exceptions railway employees were paid for holidays With regard to the second question, this would take some time to compile, but he would see what could be done.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the Government has received from the proprietors of newspapers outside Cape Town a petition praying for the free transmission by telegraph of the press reports of Parliamentary proceedings, and whether it is intended to take action in this direction?

replied that no application of this kind had been received, and it was not the intention of the Government to carry Parliamentary reports over the wires free of charge.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation making the fair-wage clause applicable to Government contracts throughout the Union?

said that the question was one of some importance, but the Government was prepared to take the matter into consideration. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister of Education: (1) Whether he will be good enough to give the information asked for under head No. 4 of the question regarding the Agricultural College at Pretoria, which information was not given yesterday; (2) whether he will inform the House why the £100,000 voted for the Agricultural College was diverted to some other purpose; and (3) from what sources it is expected that this money will be refunded?

said that the full details of the scheme had not yet been considered. He tried to make that point clear on the (last occasion. Its extension and development into a firstclass modern Agricultural College was in view.

At Pretoria?

Yes. Continuing, he said that the £100,000 was not diverted to any other purpose. The amount was included in the schedule of works: to be paid for out of the loan of 1903. This consisted of reservable advances, and therefore only on its being repaid could the account be funded.

Who were these advances made to?

The Crown Colony Government.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to define and declare the powers and privileges of the Parliament of the Union of South Africa; to give freedom of speech and debate on proceedings in Parliament, and to give summary protection to persons employed in the publication of Parliamentary papers.

Leave was granted, the Bill read a first time, and set down for second reading on Monday.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws in force in the Union relating to the solemnisation of marriages.

Leave was granted, and the Bill read a first time.

moved that the Bill be read a second time on Tuesday.

suggested that a little longer time should be allowed for the consideration of the Bill.

did not think it was necessary. It was only a consolidating Bill.

said the Bill was hardly likely to be reached on Tuesday, which was private members’ day.

moved “That this House deprecates the making of contracts in any way interfering with the freedom of marriage, and resolves that the Union Government should use its influence in every way to discourage or prevent such contracts being made or enforced” The mover said the question was a very big one. In this country there were several large institutions, including the Government, which put obstacles in the way of the union of persons of marriageable age. In one large institution no clerk was allowed to marry until after 12 years’ service, no matter what his salary might be. Then lady teachers were not allowed to retain their billets after marriage, so that the Government were also offenders. The banks, too, were in much the same position in regard to the restrictions they placed on their clerks getting married. He quite appreciated that, in the case of certain special Government officials, restriction is to some extent were necessary. In English and Scottish law, any general restraint on marriage was unlawful, though restrictions as regards the marriages of particular persons was legal. In some special circumstances the Government might properly impose restrictions in this country. For instance, it would be just and proper for the Government to say that the marriage of any European clerk in the State service to a native or coloured person should involve forfeiture of such person’s office. But any general sort of restraint was wrong. He thought it would be perfectly right if the Government discouraged such general restraint by withholding public business from any institution which had a general clause in contracts with their servants in restraint of marriage.

seconded.

said he thought general restriction against marriage was against public policy, and if the Government could use its influence in the direction of discouraging such restrictions, he was sure their action would commend itself to the House and to the country.

said that, unfortunately, this was a question which affected some of his Departments very much As much as possible he would extend his blessing to the happy state of marriage; but he was afraid that if the advice laid down in the motion were followed, the marriage of certain classes would not be an unmixed blessing. Forty per cent. of the police were allowed to be married, but if the principle laid down in the motion were extended to the police, it would involve a very large extra expense. Then the fact that policemen were married prevented the force being so mobile as it otherwise would be. The same principle held good with regard to warders, and the fact that some warders were married prevented them from being shifted from one prison to another

said he was in the same position as the mover, for he had always valued his freedom of action very much. (Laughter.) He objected, however, to the distinction drawn by the mover between the white and coloured races in this matter. Every man and woman, irrespective of colour, ought to be free to marry whom they pleased.

said that the embargoes which were being placed on marriage—whether by institutions like banks and insurance societies, or by Government Departments—were altogether wrong. (Hear, hear.) The result must be that in time a great deal of the increased population of the world, and particularly in our own country, would consist of a class that was not so well adapted to the carrying on of the good qualities of the race that otherwise we might secure. The more we tried to put an embargo on suitable marriages, the more we were doing an injury to the race to which we belonged. The more we did that, the more did we secure an undesirable class of people living in the world.

The motion was negatived.

moved: “That the attention of the Minister of Lands be directed to the high quitrent which is being paid on farms in Griqualand West and Beohuanaland.” In introducing his motion, the hon. member said that it had been a hardy annual in the Cape Assembly. A deputation from the districts mentioned had recently visited the Minister of Agriculture at Pretoria. They had been sympathetically received, and presented an optimistic report on their return. Farms in Griqualand West and Bechuanaland had been granted under many different Acts. The Act of 1878 was the first to make provision for the disposal of farms. The then Government considered it policy to make as much as possible out of the sale of Crown lands. Bad as that policy was, the farming population was but poorly represented in Parliament at that time; he was glad that conditions had changed to such an extent that a farmers’ Cabinet was now at the head of affairs. In 1887, an Act was passed, increasing the facilities for obtaining Grown lands. In 1896, 1897, and 1908 further amendments were introduced into the existing legislation, but the final result of this tinkering was hopeless confusion. It was in order to unravel a very tangled skein that the motion had been introduced. In 1908, the member for Vryburg, in the Cape Assembly, moved for a Select Committee to go into the question thoroughly, but the right honourable gentleman who guided the destiny of the country in those days kept too dose a hold on the purse-strings. The present Government should appoint a Commission to inquire and report, without delay. He, the speaker, would give evidence before such a body, for it was imperative that the people in the North should be assisted.

seconded. He said he was very glad that the attention of the House had been called to what had been a long-standing grievance. The members of the old Cape Parliament would recognise the motion as a hardy annual. He regretted to say that, in spite of all the efforts that had been made in the past, the matter had not been remedied. The case of Bechuanaland was even stronger than that of Griqualand West. The question was: How were they going to bring about uniformity between these parts and the various Provinces forming the Union. If they went to the Transvaal, they found that the average quitrent was 10s. per 1,000 morgen. In the Orange Free State it was £1 for 1,000 morgen, and in Natal he understood that it was a little more. In the North-western districts of the Cape, however, the farmers were penalised by the heavy quitrent, and the development of the country retarded, and the question was as to how the Government should approach the matter. The question was a very big one, and should not be dealt with by a Select Committee. He would prefer to see a Commission appointed which would go round the country, get into touch with the farmers, and hear what their grievances were He thought that such a Commission would do far more good than a Select Committee, which would simply lake the evidence of half-a-dozen people. In the Cape they had had a Quitrent Relief Commission, but it was not a success. It consisted largely of Civil Servants, who did not understand the local requirements. True, it went round the country, but not in the interests of the country generally. It went round to see that the revenue of the Government was not interfered with. The Prime Minister had declared his intention to carry out a policy of development, and he (the speaker) thought that this was an opportunity for the Government to hear the grievances of the farmers of Griqualand West and Bechuanaland, and to remove those embargoes that were largely militating against the development and occupation of the land. He hoped that they were going to have a satisfactory reply from the Government, and that they would hear from the Prime Minister that a Commission would be appointed during the recess. If a Commission were appointed, he had every reason to believe that its report would be favourable, and that it would lead to a considerable reduction of the quitrent paid on farms in Griqualand West and Bechuanaland.

said that the motion asked that the attention of the Government should be called to certain anomalies, and to what was considered to be an iniquitous incidence of taxation in a certain portion of the country. He trusted that he would never be found asking the House for doles for any constituency in which he was interested. He trusted that he would never be found asking the House to throw away revenue which fairly belonged to the country, and he trusted that he would never be found asking the Government to be extravagant or to waste revenue. But where inequalities and anomalies existed, surely the attention of the Ministry should be called to them, and asked seriously to consider the situation. Whether a Select Committee or a Commission would be the better way of dealing with the matter, he did not know, but he certainly would support a careful inquiry being held into the question in order that it might be fairly put before the House.

welcomed the support given to the motion by the previous speaker. The hon. member for Barkly, during the elections, had had occasion to travel about in his Constituency, and that had given the hon. member an opportunity of seeing for himself how the people were living. They had been suffering for the last twelve years, and nothing brought home the difference between one part of the country and another so quickly as an examination of the conditions under which they had to exist. In the past they had had a Commission to report on those things Its personnel was sufficiently able to deal with the question at issue, but many witnesses never appeared, simply because of the lack of postal facilities in that part of the country. Some of them could only be reached by post once a month; hence these people never heard of the Commission until it had finished its labours. The Commission drew up its report on the basis of the evidence placed before it by the magistrates, but if the wishes of the hon. member for Hopetown were carried out, not a single member of the House would offer any objection to an amelioration of the conditions complained of. He urged the speedy appointment of the contemplated Commission of enquiry in order that relief might be granted during the next session of Parliament.

said he was in favour of closer settlement. Before bringing any more people into South Africa, however, they should make sure that the land was there on which to put them, and he trusted the Government would pursue a policy tending to make unoccupied parts of the country inhabitable.

said that it was absolutely necessary that that question of the disposal of the Crown lands should be gone into. The policy of making money out of Crown lands was a mistaken one, he thought, but they must also guard against speculation, as far as Crown lands were concerned. He hoped that the Government would give serious consideration to the appointment of the Commission, and see that the Crown lands were beneficially occupied. The hon. member alluded to the Cape Acts of 1895 and 1898. He said that all their Acts had had in view the making of as much money as possible out of the Crown lands, instead of getting them settled as beneficially as possible.

moved, as an amendment, to add to the end of the motion: “And the districts of Cathcart and Stutterheim.”

seconded the amendment.

said that if the Government could induce people to settle upon those farms instead of demanding high quitrents, it would be better for all concerned. Some had had to sell their farms because they could not pay their quitrent. He thought the Government should look into the matter, and he regretted that something stronger had not been proposed. The charges were often iniquitous.

said that the Government had every sympathy with the question now before the House, but as was often the case, as far as matters of finance were concerned, the Government could not only look to one side, but had to keep other matters in view. They could not lose sight of the fact that the same matter had been before the Cape Parliament on several occasions, that Acts had been passed in that connection, and that a Commission had been appointed and had reported. The matter had come so recently before the Cape Parliament as October, 1909, he thought. Well, if they referred the same matter to the Union Parliament that would be tantamount to constituting the latter as a Court of Appeal as far as the old Cape Parliament was concerned. The Government would give the whole matter due consideration at the proper time, but there was danger in piecemeal legislation, because although certain grievances might be remedied by so doing, other grievances would again arise. The matter must be dealt with from the point of view of the whole of the Union, and one uniform scheme adopted. The Government would devote its attention to the matter on that line. (Hear, hear.)

said that he was glad the Minister had recognised that an injustice had been done in the past. It followed that action would have to be taken, because it was surely the duty of every Government to remove grievances where these were known to exist. He commended the motion to the Government’s consideration.

Does the hon. member withdraw his motion?

No; not that I will leave it in the Government’s hands.

The amendment was negatived.

The motion was adopted

moved, seconded by Mr. I. G. KING. “That in view of the danger arising from the rapid spread of East Coast fever, this House is of opinion that legislation dealing with the subject should be introduced forthwith.” The mover said that though the motion bad been changed this did not mean that he had changed his opinion on the subject. He Wanted legislation to deal with localities where East Coast fever had made headway. The answer he had heard on the subject had been disappointing to him, and he felt sure would be exceedingly dis appointing to his constituents. Continuing, he said that when the first Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa took in his own hands the portfolio of agriculture it was thought throughout the length and breadth of the land, or accepted as an indication, that it meant a recognition of the importance of the industry in this country. And what was wanted was a clear and definite policy of agricultural development as against a policy of opportunity. The Prime Minister had said that the country was not ripe for such legislation, but if he (the Prime Minister) knew of the conditions of farming and the danger there was of herds being swept away, he (the mover) did not think he would say that the country was not ripe for legislation of this kind. The hon. member proceeded to refer to the evidence given before a Select Committee, which had considered the matter, where the importance of legislation being enacted to deal with the disease was urged. He also read a telegram which he had received from King William’s Town— a constituency which he did not represent— which stated that at a meeting of the Farmers’ Association there a resolution had been passed urging upon the Government the desirability of bringing forward legislation for the compulsory cleansing of cattle. The consensus of opinion was that legislation was necessary, and that this legislation should be carried into effect without delay. Was the Prime Minister going to adopt a policy which he himself must know to be the right course—a course which had been clearly indicated by the highest scientific authorities in the country? Was he going to put up a fight against East Coast fever or was he going to allow himself to be thrown hither and thither by the policy of the party or the exigencies of party? The hon. member proceeded to refer to the number of cattle in the Province, and the dire consequences that might fallow were something not done by the Government to deal with the scourge. More than the mere loss of cattle was the effect such a state of affairs would have upon a great industry of the country. During the thirty years he had been engaged in farming he had noticed a gradual if, perhaps, slow advancement, in certain branches of the agricultural industry in his part of the country, but if East Coast fever came in and killed off the cattle the industry would be thrown back years The recommendations of the Inter-Colonial Agricultural Union which he had ventured to submit to the House, were the outcome of the best advice they could possibly get in this country, and of careful deliberation. He was a great admirer of the party system, which was perhaps the purest hat, had yet been conceived by the genias of statesmen, but he would be sorry to think it was not possible in this country for parties to unite in the face of a threatened national calamity. (Hear, hear.) He had not raised this question as a weapon with which to assail the Government. He had brought it forward in the hope that Parliament might be able to induce the Minister for Agriculture to bring in a Bill embodying the resolutions to which he had referred, and he brought it forward, in the second place, in the hope that he would be table to show the Minister for Agriculture that in taking this course he would have the support of the vast majority of hon. members of that House. If the right hon. gentleman should find himself unable to accede to his (Mr. Blaine’s) request, he would have to press the matter to a division, in order that, it this country were devastated by East Coast fever, the country might know on whose shoulders to lay the blame. He hoped the time would come when there would be in that House a Minister for Agriculture who would assume office with a clear and definite policy, a man who would enter Parliament determined to carry that policy through or resign his portfolio. If they had a Minister who would take up that position he would have behind him the strong and enthusiastic support of a large body of members. (Cheers.)

said that thanks to the Prime Minister of the Cape, and the Minister for Education of the Cape, and their officials, the Gape had in the past made a splendid fight against East Coast fever, and the Transvaal, too, had done work which was greatly (appreciated. It would be a matter for regret if they were to relax their restrictions and their efforts now. He regretted that the Government had given up the shooting policy in the Transkei. Unless they took proper measures it would be only a matter of time for the outbreak to sweep through the whole of the Colony. He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, and re-adopt the shooting policy. The expense of cordons and the like was great, but such measures were comparatively ineffective, and the disease was slowly moving along, whereas if they used the gun they could stamp it out there and then. There were something like a million head of cattle in the Transkei. In what condition were the natives going to be if all these cattle were swept away? He did not know what reasons actuated the Government in stopping the shooting policy in the Transkei. If it were because they feared trouble, he would say it was the duty of the Government to have taken up a firm attitude from the first, and to have made the natives understand that what the Europeans had to submit to, they also would have to submit to. It would be an act of kindness to make the natives understand it was in their own interests that these measures were being taken. The resolutions of the Inter-Colonial Agricultural Union were excellent, and if the Government would adopt them in their regulations, they would have gone far towards coping with the disease. The policy of the Government should also be to encourage dipping as much as possible, and in this connection he thought Government should come to the assistance of farmers. He also believed in fencing, and if they wished to stamp out East Coast fever they should stop the movement of cattle, and all infected beasts should be destroyed. Then they must not be too sure that East Coast fever would confine itself to the coast belts. The whole House had the greatest confidence in the Prime Minister—(hear, hear)—but there was a tendency to modify the regulations. Rather they should be made more stringent, and then there would be a chance of stamping out the disease. (Cheers.)

said the consideration of East Coast fever was not going to be made a party question in that House. (Hear, hear.) Natal’s experience with regard to the disease was, he admitted, not satisfactory. In a few months wealthy farmers there had been reduced from affluence to penury, and the storekeepers also suffered. Let those who hesitated about giving Government powers in this matter remember the fact. He was Minister of Agriculture for Natal when East Coast fever broke out in that Province, and he knew the difficulties which confronted the Administration in dealing with it. He believed that there existed on the Natal Statute-book sufficient measures for stamping out the disease, with the added precaution of dipping, which had been found of the greatest value. (Hear, hear.) Many districts in Natal had adopted the permissive laws regarding dipping, and he thought the Minister of Agriculture should be empowered to insist on dipping. (Hear, hear.) He hoped every hon. member would support the motion. (Hear, hear.)

agreed with every word spoken by the last three speakers. He would tell the House why Natal’s efforts to stamp out the disease had failed. It was because the Natal Government had not the courage to force its policy on the country. (Cheers.) But the question was of sufficient importance to have gone to the country on. (Cheers.) If (proceeded the hon. member) an energetic policy were not carried out by the Union Government, great disappointment would be felt in Natal, which made a mistake in not benefiting from the example of Rhodesia. He warned that Government and Parliament not to make the same mistake, and not to be guided by the example of Rhodesia and Natal. (Hear, hear.)

said that he cordially supported the motion, but he wished to indicate to the House the condition of affairs in the Transkei, because at the present time the whole of that territory had been declared by Proclamation to be a suspected area. As regards the preventive measures that ought to be taken, he wished to say that he spoke for the people whom he represented, when he said that the first and chief instrument of prevention must be dipping, constant dipping, compulsory dipping. From his knowledge of the natives, and of what had been done in the Transkeian Territories, he was certain that the natives—in fact, the whole population— would be ready to adopt a compulsory Dipping Act. To his mind, first and foremost in regard to combating East Coast fever was the bringing into existence of a compulsory Dipping Act. With regard to the Transkei, the Cape Government veterinary surgeon had reported that there were 86 dipping tanks and 34 supervisors. Out of the 86 tanks a large number had been established by the natives themselves. He wanted to give the House these figures in order to show that there would be no difficulty in the Transkeian Territory, as suggested by the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels). That hon. member seemed to think that the natives were a great hindrance to the carrying out of regulations for the prevention and eradication of the East Coast fever. That, however, was not so, and perhaps it would be news to some members to know that the natives were raising, by voluntary subscriptions, the sum of £15,000 or £16,000 for the prevention of the fever by the erection of 15 tanks and 35 spraying machines. A large proportion of these tanks had already been erected. In one district in the Transkei there were three dipping tanks erected solely by natives; but there was only one supervisor, and he thought that there was an opportunity for the Government to come forward to help the people of the Transkei. He thought that the expense of appointing supervisors ought to be met out of the general revenue of the country. With regard to fencing, the general opinion in the Transkei was that it had not proved a very great help. With regard to the resolutions passed by the Agricultural Union, he said that, although he did not wish to criticise them, there were differences in the circumstances of the country which made some of the provisions rather unworkable in the Transkei. He did not wish it to be supposed that he was opposed to the motion, or to the carrying out of the resolutions of the Agricultural Union, but he did want the House to understand the peculiar circumstances of the Transkei, and to recognise that there must be a modification of the system that prevailed in other parts of South Africa. Continuing, the hon. member quoted from a recent leading article in the “Territorial News,” which, he said, bore out exactly what he had been saying, and which also expressed dissatisfaction with what the Prime Minister (General Botha) had said the other day. He hoped the hon. member would take that matter into his serious consideration and see if the regulations were carried out, it was done with a minimum of hardship and inconvenience.

said he was glad of the assurance given the House by the Prime Minister, and added that the right hon. gentleman would have the whole hearted support of hon. members on his side of the House. He dealt with the Act passed in the Gape Province in 1908, and said the pity was that the provisions of this measure did not go far enough. He laid stress on the branding of cattle, pointing out that the Cape Act of 1908 did not give the Government power to enforce branding. It was because the Act was deficient in these respects that they now urged upon the Government the necessity of strengthening legislation of this kind. The speaker went on to refer to the terms of the Act of 1908, and said that the Government had no power to compel people to brand cattle. If this brandling system had been in farce in the Transkei they would not have had the incident which happened the other day. Cattle broke through the fence, and one came down as far as the East London division. As these cattle were not branded, there were no means of these animals being traced. He said that the Prime Minister, after what he had stated, could rely upon the wholehearted support of the House so far as strengthening existing legislation was concerned. He referred to what had been said about dipping, and remarked that he thought compulsory dipping was an impossibility at the present time. At the same time, no man should be a danger to his neighbours, but all should be prepared to sacrifice something in the general interests of the community. He hoped that the Prime Minister would not object to this resolution being passed.

pointed out that in the King’s Speech, delivered by the Governor-General at the opening of Parliament, reference had been unlade to the introduction of a measure dealing with stock diseases. So far as branding in the Territory was concerned, it was not necessary to await the passing of this new Bill, because the Government had the power to make a declaration of the kind by Proclamation. The reason why it had not been done was not because they had not the power, but for other reasons. At the same time, he would mention that the system bad been enforced in certain parts. Drastic regulations were all very well, but if they were not enforced to the full extent, then such a policy was not sound. Again, if they introduced branding into a community that was against branding, there would be a scare, the natives would trek away with their cattle, and serious consequences might result. He thought that those who had influence in the Territory should use that influence, and see that the people worked with the Government. Without co-operation of the people, it would be impossible to carry out any regulations of the kind. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels) said that they should shoot. That was all very well, but they must consider the other side of the question. If they did that, they might alienate the sympathy of the people, and do far more harm than good. They did shoot in parts, but it was one of those actions in which the greatest discretion had to be exercised, and the best thing done under the circumstances. Hon. members could rest assured that the policy laid down by the expert at the Congress referred to was the policy of the Government, and they were doing what they could to give effect to that. It was the intention of the Government shortly to introduce legislation giving them full power to carry out that policy.

said he, like other hon. members, appreciated the good intentions of the Government, but he would like to know how they were going to give effect to their intentions. If the Transvaal system was the best system, why not extend it? And, then, how could they extend it? They had not the machinery. How were they to get people to co-operate? One part of the Government case ‘was that it was absolutely essential that there should be co-operation, and then, as a reason for not acting upon those lines, they were told that they could not get co-operation. It seemed to him they wanted in the hands of the head of the Government something equivalent to martial Jaw. He meant that in the war against this disease they wanted very strong powers in the Government, and they could not rely entirely on the voluntary co-operation of the community. The disease was slowly creeping on. People were deluding themselves with the idea that the disease would not spread on the high veld. Well, they had found it at plaices 12,000 feet high. A year ago he was at Washington, and made some inquiries about this, and he was told that the two great enemies which the Government had to deal with in this matter of cattle diseases were the ignorance of the population and the State rights. Well, in the matter of the ignorance of a large section of the population, this country could match America. If they introduced an optional system here, if they gave Divisional Councils or certain areas the right to invoice the operation of the law, they would have State nights in the very worst form—(hear, hoar)—and they would never get any remedy. They had had had cattle diseases in this country before, but unless this disease were stopped, all the cattle in South Africa would be wiped out. And they must remember it would be 15 months before they could start the process of building up again. And, moreover, they could only go on with inferior immuned stock, as was the case in the redwater infected areas in America. It would be of great interest to hon. members to read the statement of the Prime Minister, because a more Convincing case for legislation could not be made out, nor could it come from a higher authority, for there was no hon. member in that House who had had the opportunities and the experience of the Prime Minister. It was there, in that House, that an appeal ought to be made for co-operation, and not in the Transkei and other parts of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was no good saying that a storekeeper must co-operate with a native or a farmer, It was the member himself who must co-operate with other members to put drastic measures into operation. It was in Parliament that there must be co-operation. It was an unfortunate thing in regard to this disease that it made a very profitable set of circumstances for one set of people, and before they could deal with it effectively it must be made unprofitable to everyone. (Hear, hear.) He appreciated the difficulties of any Government or of any official if any sort of exemption were allowed. Not one of the exemptions allowed in the past had been of any help. What was desired was cooperation in a constructive effort to deal with a big danger And in dealing (with a big danger hardships had to be endured, and very often great injustice had to be done to the individual. However, that was for the good of the country at large, and he honed Government would ask for powers, which he was certain it would get, and it =would also obtain that co-operation throughout South Africa which would secure for it that full support so necessary to enable the Government to deal with the situation. (Cheers.)

said it was terrible to realise the havoc that the disease had wrought in his constituency. Several different methods were tried of dealing with the disease, and the result of the frequent change was that everything was at sixes and sevens. However, now there were rays of sunshine in the researches of Dr. Theiler and Dr. Watkins Pitchford, It had been found that if cattle frequently were dipped in an arsenical preparation, the ticks were poisoned, and in about 15 months or two years a farm would be cleansed. But it was essential that dipping should be started betimes, and should be made compulsory. The law should be a strict one, and the regulations, when once laid down, should strictly be adhered to. Natal’s experience in this respect had been an unfortunate one, regulations which had been promulgated in August not having been carried out up to the present. The rest of the country which had so far escaped the disease little knew of the danger that confronted it. Therefore, he trusted the House would follow up the question, and see that legislation was brought forward.

said that his desire was to enable the Government to carry out a policy which the was pleased to hear had been the policy of the Prime Minister in the Transvaal.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if the Government were introducing a Bill in which regulations would be embodied?

The House would be asked to give power to the Government to put these things into force.

But will the powers in the Bill be of such a character that the Government must carry them out?

replied in the affirmative.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for a return showing: (a) the number of cattle which have died from East Coast fever, as well as the numbers which have been destroyed or slaughtered with the object of preventing the spread of the disease; and (b) the approximate value of the animals which have so died, been destroyed, or slaughtered since the disease first made its appearance, to the present time in the Transvaal, Natal, and Cape Provinces respectively.

seconded.

said that instructions had already been given to have the return prepared, and that it would be laid on the table as soon as it was ready.

The motion was agreed to.

withdrew his motion: “That the Minister of Finance be requested to lay on the table the general account current for the Union from May 31 to October 31.” He said that the Treasurer had informed him that the returns were about to be laid on the table.

resumed the debate on the amendment to clause 3, proposed by Mr. Jagger (Cape Town, Central), who moved to omit all the words from “at any time” to the end of the clause, and substitute “within five years immediately preceding the date of he application (a) he has resided for a period of not less than two years in the Union or in any colony or territory included at the date of his application within the Union; or (b) he has been in the service of the Crown, or has obtained a certificate or letters of naturalisation in any British Colony or possession which certificate or letters remains or remain in full force and effect.” He said that it was not possible to accept the amendment. The subject of reciprocity was much more complicated than the hon. member who moved the amendment supposed, and should not be dealt with now. In not a single British colony had anything been done in the matter. The question of reciprocity was being considered by the Imperial Government, and they in South Africa should wait for the passing of a Bill by the Imperial Parliament.

said that the Minister of the Interior was wrong when he said that nothing had been done in any other British colony. The matter had been before the Imperial Parliament since 1906. Since that time the Canadian Government had passed a Bill which contained the provision which was embodied in his clause.

said he could not possibly support the amendment because it would enable certain people to trade on the rights of others.

said that all they asked was that if application was received from anybody who held letters of naturalisation from another colony, and which were still in force, it should be in the power of the Minister to grant or refuse such an application.

hoped that the amendment would be accepted. Surely if a man was a British subject and of suitable character, why was it necessary for him to wait for two years before letters of naturalisation were granted? Surely if he received such letters in a British colony, why should the Minister make the man wait all this time?

said that they would have a great many difficulties to deal with if such an amendment were included in the Act. Let them take the case of a Chinaman naturalised in Hong Kong. They had passed an Act here which precluded the entry of Chinese, and such being the case, he asked hon. members to consider a position of the kind. They would land themselves in no end of difficulties, and in asking him to do what was wanted, they asked something that was practically impossible. A Chinaman from Hong Kong, if this amendment were allowed to pass, would have the right by law to come here and submit his case to the Minister. From all points of view, he submitted, they would have to deal with a host of difficulties if they adopted this principle of reciprocity by means of a mere formula.

said the Minister for the Interior had brought forward no valid argument. Supposing a Chinaman—a British citizen— came here from Hong Kong, he would have to be here two years before he could apply to be naturalised, and it would just depend on the will of the Minister whether his application would be granted or not. This Bill did not put him in any better position than he was now. If we in this country had legislation on all fours with the Imperial Act, it would mean that we would have Imperial naturalisation. No valid argument had been advanced against the amendment.

said hon. members knew that early next year there would be another Imperial Conference, and this was one of the questions that would be discussed there. Why now anticipate a discussion which would regulate the thing once and for all for the Empire? It was difficult to deal with this matter piecemeal. In 1904 a stringent Act was passed by the Cape Colony against Chinamen being admitted, and two exceptions were made. Those exceptions were British Chinamen coming from elsewhere and Chinamen naturalised within the Cape Colony. Now, if they adopted this amendment, Chinamen could go over to Hong Kong and get naturalised there as British subjects, and they would then come here, and there would be no right to exclude them. They were dealing with the British Empire, which had a number of different laws. When the Imperial Conference took place the whole question would be decided from an Empire point of view.

said he was sorry that the Minister had not road the whole section, because he omitted the words, “after the passing of this Act no certificate shall be issued to any Chinaman on any ground whatsoever.” Another misleading part of the argument used by the Minister for the Interior was that he did not remember the powers given to him under clause five, which laid it down that there should be no appeal from his decision. Surely no one would be so foolish as to go into court in face of such a provision as that! Under the Canadian Act of 1907 persons naturalised in any other part of the Empire could go to Canada and claim to be naturalised. With regard to the Chinese, if a man came here from Hong Kong the Minister could not naturalise him so far as the Cape was concerned.

said no one had a greater admiration for the legal abilities of the Minister of the Interior than he had, but legal ability might sometimes be used for the purpose of alarming people and putting them on a false scent. An attempt had been made to make it appear that if the amendment were carried it would open the floodgates to Chinese invasion. For many years a great adornment of the late Cape Parliament was the late Colonel Sohermbrucker, a naturalised British subject, but if that gentleman had gone to the Transvaal he would have been regarded as an alien there. All that they asked, added the hon. member, was that the responsible Minister should have the right to waive the two years’ residence qualification. (Hear, hear.)

moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

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

from W. H. Whitney, gaoler, of Elliot, who served on garrison duty, in Pondoland, from November, 1899, to November, 1900, praying the House to condone certain break in his service from April, 1905, to June, 1903, and to recognise his previous services for pension purposes, or other relief.

from M. P. J. Moyle, who served as a teacher in the Education Department for 38 years, and resigned in 1909, owing to ill-health, on a pension of £52 per annum, praying for an increase thereof, or for other relief.

from J. A. E. Markus, formerly Commissioner of Police, Bloemfontein, and Commandant of Police, Orange Free State, who served under the late Governments of the Cape and Orange Free State for about 15 years, praying for consideration, or other relief.

from O. J. Truter, of Kroonstad (and supported by 144 signatures from inhabitants), who served for nearly 15 years in various capacities under the late Government of the Orange Free State, and who was awarded a monthly allowance of £1 10s., praying the House to consider his age of 72 years and weak; state of health, and grant him further relief.

from A. J. Parsons, construction engineer, who served in the Railway and Public Works Departments, with certain breaks, for about 50 years, until December, 1910, from which date he will be retired on pension, praying for special consideration, or other relief.

from C. A. H. Kotze, who served as a teacher in the Education Department from January, 1906, praying that a break in his service from April, 1907, to June, 1909, may be condoned, or for other relief.

from T. J. Kotze and eight others, styling themselves inhabitants of Klerksdorp and electors in the division of Potchefstroom, Transvaal Province, drawing attention to licence fees payable on stands owned by them within the municipal area of Klerksdorp, whereas by Act No. 34 of 1908 of the Transvaal, stands in certain other townships have been changed into freehold properties, praying for favourable consideration and relief.

from Anna Tucker, widow of the late E. M. Tucker, who died in May, 1908, when sergeant of police in Kimberley, after ten years’ service, praying for an increased pension or for other relief.

from S. A. Roberts, late Chief Inspector of Native Locations, Gape Colony, who after 12 years’ service was retired on a pension of £275 10s. 8d., praying for further consideration, or other relief.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Ordens had appointed Mr. E. N. Grobler to be a member of the Select Committee on the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bid in the stead of Mr. Wilcocks.

as chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Ordens, as follows lows: Third report of the Select committee, appointed by orders of the House of Assembly, dated November 7th and 8th, 1910, on Standing Rules and Orders, land to consist of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, Dr. Jameson, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Juta, and Mr. Watt. Your committee, having considered the question of the rules to be framed for the payment of members of Parliament, beg to recommend the adaption of the following rules, viz.: (.1) Subject to the deductions, if any, there shall be paid by the Clerk of the House concerned, at the end of each month during a session to every member of Parliament a sum at the rate of £60 per month, the balance of such member’s annual allowance to be paid at the end of each financial year. (2) Before any payment is made to a member during a session of Parliament, he shall furnish to the Clerk of the House of which he is a member, a certificate signed by him showing the number of days during the month on which he attended, and the number of days (if any) on which he was absent, land the reason for such absence. (3) “Absent,” in respect of a member, shall mean absent from the House of which he is a member, or from any committee of which he is a member during the whole of a day of the session for any cause other than his own illness, or upon the subpoena of a competent Court.”

Chairman. Committee Roams, House of Assembly, November 118, 1910.

moved, seconded by Mr. P. G. W. GROBLER, that the report be considered on Monday.

Agreed to.

(1) Government Notice promulgating Rules under Law No. 48, 1884 (Natal) relating to passes to natives; (2) list of chiefs in Zululand who are paid stipends, Act No. 37, 1897 (Natal); (3) reports by Council for Native Affairs (Natal), upon matters specified in section thirty-two of Act No. 1, 1909 (Natal), February 3rd to October 7th, 1910.

moved the second reading. The Bill, he said, was in the main la consolidating measure. The object was to prohibit the export of ostriches, ostrich eggs, and angora goats. Two new provisions had been made, however. Clause 2 made certain exceptions in favour of certain places to which export would be allowed. Clause 3 provided that ostriches or angora goats, leaving Union ports by vessel, could not be transshipped. At present negotiations were being conducted with the Government of German South-west Africa with a view to preventing the export from that territory.

pointed out the importance of ostrich-farming to the Cape. Unless the export of birds were absolutely prohibited, the industry would suffer. He welcomed the Bill, but regretted that the door had been left open to such an extent. Once export was allowed they had to make up their minds to face a condition of affairs in the future such as existed in Turkey now. Owing to the Turkish export of angora goats, South Africa at present occupied a position of preeminence. There were some ostrich-farmers who considered it advantageous to export birds, but even if £200,000 were realised by the sale of ostriches, the advantage would be a negative one if South Africa lost an industry yielding £2,000,000 annually. The Government proposed to allow the export to such countries as passed similar legislation, but what could prevent German South-west Africa from repealing such legislation afterwards? In that country wild ostriches roamed about, and if the people wished to establish an industry, why did they not catch those birds? The same thing had been done originally in Cape Colony, where it had taken forty years to bring the breed up to its present perfection. Stringent measures should be taken in order to prevent such a calamity as the ruin of the Cape industry would be; yet, it would come to pass within eighteen months unless the export were stopped. If the Government obtained the power sought in this Bill to permit the export by proclamation, he was afraid that fraudulent actions would be resorted to, because money was very powerful. He was in favour of deleting that provision lest America should manage to obtain its birds from the Cape. It was eager to compete, which he knew from personal observation.

hoped the House would set its face against giving Government vast powers to deal with affairs by regulation. (Cheers.) In the Cape Act of 1907 it was made unlawful to export ostriches or ostrich eggs, but the Bill before the House said the Government might make regulations to that effect.

Read clause 2.

But it is in the hands of Government. Continuing, the hon. member maintained that the committee of that House should decide if there were to be exportation of ostriches and Angora goats, and to what places they might go. He suggested that the committee stage should be deferred for 10 or 14 days, because there was a large number of people in the country who took a deep interest in the matter. It was only fair that the people who had invested a large amount of capital in ostrich and goat farming should have an opportunity through meetings of their associations to express their opinions on this subject. (Cheers.) If they were to protect the ostrich-farming industry in any tangible manner they must have a clause in the Bill which would make it impossible under any circumstances to export ostriches by sea. He had been informed that a short time ago two ostriches left the Cape consigned to German South-west Africa, but that owing to weather conditions those birds were not landed there. Could the hon. member (Mr. Malan) say whether that was correct or not? Why he (Dr. Smartt) was so opposed to the exportation by sea was that if birds were put on a steamer consigned to other ports in Africa there was no guarantee that they would be landed at those ports. His idea was that with the large border between the Cape and German South-west Africa it would be impossible to prevent birds being” smuggled across. It would be well worth the House considering whether it would not be better to continue the exportation to German South-west Africa, and interest the people there in the industry and get them to agree to the prohibition of the export of ostriches from that territory. Such an arrangement should also be entered into with British East Africa, where, he heard, there were some very good birds.

said that in 1907 an Act was passed by the Cape Parliament which provided that ostriches and ostrich eggs could be exported to certain other parts of South Africa where similar Acts had been passed. Now, the ostrich farmers in the Cape did not wish to embarrass the Government in their relations with friendly Governments on their confines, hut he thought he was expressing the opinion of the great majority of ostrarich-farmers when he said that they would like to see the exportation of ostriches and ostrich eggs prohibited altogether outside the Union. However, the fact remained that at the present time ostriches and ostrich eggs were being exported to German South-west Africa and Portuguese East Africa. The ostrich industry was of vital importance to a very large section of the people of the Cape Province, and they wanted as, far as possible to prevent other parts of South Africa outside of the Union sharing their prosperity.

Selfishness.

It may be selfishness, but it is a very good policy. Proceeding, the speaker said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) had stated that it would to advisable to postpone the committee stage for 14 days, and no hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill Would see Iris way clear to do so. With regard to regulations, the Government would have to consider the other Governments with whom they had reciprocity, lie referred to German South-west Africa and Portuguese East Africa. The regulations would have to be framed subject to their approval. He hoped that the House would have an opportunity of seeing the regulations before they were promulgated. He would like to see the power of the Governor-General in Council to enter into reciprocity with other Governments done away, as he considered that before reciprocity was agreed upon the House should be asked to deal first with the matter. As regards the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) with reference to British East Africa, he wished to say that the people there must be alive to their own interests. They had wild ostriches, but it would take another 40 years before they reached the state of perfection which had been attained in the Cape, and why should the farmers in the Cape give them the advantage of their dear experience? The people of British East Afrca must be alive to their own interests, and should pass legislation to prohibit the export of their birds.

asked why ostriches should not be exported, if it was right and proper to export wool and sheep? (Oh, oh.)

said that it was well that the House should know what the actual facts were to-day. Ostrich feathers were an article of luxury. There was not a market for feathers as there was for wool. They could not increase the production of feathers to an unlimited extent and expect people to go on buying them. He had taken the trouble to go into figures, and had found that in 1908 they exported from South Africa feathers to the value of £1,700,000, and that in 1909 they increased that amount to over £2,000,000. The production was still going up in South Africa within the Union, the farmers were producing more and more, and it was perfectly obvious that the world was not going to buy an unlimited quantity. The price would fall, and when it did, no one knew how low it would drop. Feathers, which fetched £2 to-day might drop to 5s. That happened twenty years ago, when there was a crisis in the ostrich-feather trade, and numbers of farmers were ruined. Continuing, the hon. member said: Let them keep the production as far as possible in their own hands. Let them take steps to prevent the export of birds and ostrich eggs, which would only help other countries to come into the market, and perhaps ruin them in South Africa. He need not tell hon. members that if, instead of getting two millions from ostrich feathers, that market were practically ruined, and that amount were taken away, they would get absolutely nothing in return; and they might get to a point where ostrich feathers were absolutely unsaleable. If anybody would take the trouble to get the views of those engaged in the trade, they would tell the same thing. There was at present a state of anxiety as to the production. He hoped that the Minister of Education would take to heart the remarks of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. (Mr. Schoeman) and the other members who had spoken to the sarnie effect. There was a feeling of anxiety amongst ostrich farmers at present. If the Bill passed through the House, and did not give them the protection which they (the ostrich farmers) thought they were entitled to, there would be grave discontent throughout the country. The credit of these people would be shaken.

said that he was glad to have heard the remarks of the Minister for Education. He was always one of those who said that agriculture was one of the most important things in the country, and that the Portfolio of Agriculture was one of the most important in the Cabinet; but unfortunately, in the last Cabinet, it had always been considered as a Portfolio of minor consequence. (Laughter.) Now that the Portfolio was in the hands of the Prime Minister, he expected great things in South Africa, for agriculture was one of those things which would remain after other industries had been forgotten. There was no doubt that the most important market for their ostriches was America; and they were always anxious about losing that trade. Unfortunately for them, they had ostriches already in the U.S.A., and in his travels there some years ago he saw quite a number of them—a couple of thousand even on one farm. He had no doubt that the ostriches had originally been exported from South Africa, before they had shut, the stable door; but it was a grain of comfort to know that these American ostriches were not at all as good as the South African, because the Americans, with their methods of hustle, had not been as careful as the South Africans, and consequently the birds were of inferior quality. But if the production of feathers in the U.S.A. increased, it would undoubtedly have an effect on the price of feathers exported from South Africa, and they would not be able to obtain the high prices which they had obtained hitherto. If they saw to it that no more birds were exported, they could still be at the head and front of that trade, but they must be very careful. As to Angora hair, they had to compete with Turkey, and it would be a bad thing to allow their angora goats to be exported. There was not that danger, as far as the U.S.A. were concerned, as there was with regard to ostrich feathers, as America was not as good as South Africa for breeding Angora goats. With ostriches it was different. They had alfalfa hay in the U.S.A. as well as in South Africa, and so they could compete better in America with South Africa in the ostrich-feather trade. He thought that in the 3rd clause of the Bill they should clearly lay down what, the limits of “South Africa” were, because if they could export ostriches right up to Central Africa, he thought that was not right, and that the boundaries should be more restricted.

said it might be very well to make agreements with foreign States as to the exports, but what guarantee had they that legislation would not be altered in those countries, and that exports from these territories would not be permitted? It would be too late to shut the door after other countries had acquired our best stock.

said there was only a limited demand for ostrich feathers. There had been a decline in the last sales, and he believed that, in view of the largely increasing production, the price would go down. The ostrich farmer was entitled to ask protection from the House in the same way as the wine and grain farmer asked for protection by way of Customs duties. It was possible to retain a valuable monopoly to this country. To a large extent they had to thank the ostrich industry for the great advance made in many districts in regard to irrigation. If they were now to create competition, they would be lowering the standard price of ostrich feathers until, perhaps, it would be no longer profitable, and in that way they would be discouraging irrigation.

referred to the trend of legislation in the past at some length, and said that farmers in the country—farmers really interested in the progress of the industry—were opposed to its being extended in any degree. Their attitude, he thought, should be such as to preserve the industry within the borders of the Union of South Africa, and if any extension was sought for them, Parliament should decide. If they went on extending at the rate proposed, they would never stop until they got to the Mediterranean, and then it, would be out of their control. With regard to Angora goats he pointed out that Turkey had stopped their exportation. He urged the Minister to delay as long as possible, to consult those who had the interests of the industry at heart, and consider amendments in the direction proposed by previous speakers.

pointed to the number of people who were dependent on the ostrich and angora industries. He was opposed to all export, because he feared it would spoil the market As it was it was no easy matter to find a market for feathers. The attention of the Trade Commissioner in London should be drawn to the matter, and fresh markets should be looked for. He appreciated the interest shown in the matter by the Government, but trusted that they would go a step further and prohibit the export altogether.

said he would vote for the second reading, but he trusted the committee stage would not be taken until after the New Year, so that he might consult his constituents. (Laughter.)

said that the Bill did not merely consolidate. It had for its object greater stringency in connection with the restrictions imposed, and if it was thought desirable the provisions could be made even more stringent in committee. It was not desirable, however, to limit the industries concerned to the Cape Colony. There could be no question of imposing restrictions on Inter-Colonial trade. Further, some of the Provinces had treaty obligations towards other countries, and it was impossible to cancel these. It was necessary to prevent ostriches that were shipped from reaching any place except the real port of destination. The whole of South Africa would, however, have to be considered as one family, though some parts did not belong to the Union. The prohibition of export to neighbouring territories involved real danger, because it would lead to smuggling.

I would like to give an explanation.

The hon. member has already spoken.

said there were three points that struck him that had not been dealt with by the Hon. the Prime Minister, and, therefore, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, he would like to point them out. The first of these points that had been raised was that there was some talk of legislation by regulation. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) fell into the trap.

Oh, no, he didn’t.

said the Government regulation spoken of here was for foreign powers. The South Africa Union could not legislate for German South-west Africa. They first had to have an agreement with them. The second point was the advisability of taking in German South-west Africa, Between that territory and this was a border of hundreds of miles. What was there to prevent men who wanted to from smuggling ostriches over the border? It was much better to have their protection at the seaports, Swakopmund and Delagoa Bay than at such a border. If they brought those neighbours in with them to assist them, then they need not take the difficult matter of land border into consideration They could say to their neighbour, “You are interested in the same matter as we are; you have only two ports, and you can control them very much better than we can.” Then there was the question of by sea. He admitted at once there was something in that. On the other hand, if a man wanted to break their laws, whether he broke it by land or sea, he was a lawbreaker. They entered into negotiations with German South-west Africa, and they had an agreement with them that ostriches and Angora goats would not be allowed to be exported to German South-west Africa except on a certificate from, the German Government that the importer was a bonafide farmer and fit to import, and that the birds or goats would be consigned to the German Government or the British Consul. Another clause agreed that one or two steamship companies would alone have the right to export these articles. It was much better to control them at the seaports, because they could concentrate their energies there better than on the land borders. The last point was the question of British East Africa. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) was rather inclined, he took it, to think that they Should take that part into the family of South African nations. Well, it was not a neighbouring State. The agreement did not apply to British East Africa, and, further, it ran up so far north that it would be practically impossible to control it at all. On the whole, he thought they would be wise in limiting it to South of the Zambesi. When it came into committee he would move to amend it by naming the Territories. German South-west Africa, Portuguese East Africa, and Rhodesia, and then they would know exactly what they were in for. He was quite prepared to allow a fortnight to elapse before committee stage was taken, so he did not think the charge that the Government was not alive to the importance of this matter could be true.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage put down for Friday, December 2.

said it was of the greatest importance to the House to know whether the motion was merely a financial motion, or was one of want of confidence in the Government, as would appear from some of the speeches and articles on the question. It would appear that there was an attempt to embarrass the Government in this matter. As to the phrase, “as soon as may be,” he held that that had a different meaning from the word “immediately.” What would the position of the Government have been supposing the Commission had been formed on May 51, and the House had a report before it from the members of the Commission to say that the facts were not before them, and thought it was not possible for them to proceed with their work? It was impossible for the Commission to get to work until Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing the matter, and until Parliament had laid down what the functions of the Provincial Councils were to be. He wished to be certain as to what was the scope of the motion. It would be impossible for the Commission to consider the question of equalisation of taxation without a discussion on the subject by that House, and the Commission could not get to work until there was a far clearer idea as to the scope of its inquiry. There were three ways of financing the Provincial Councils. One way was to provide the whole of their income out of the State Exchequer, but he hoped that would never be done, because it would bring upon them difficulties—

was understood to complain about the appointment of the Commission being postponed indefinitely.

Not indefinitely.

Take the answer of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister never said that it was to be postponed indefinitely; neither did the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister has not yet spoken on the subject. (Ministerial cheers.) The second method of financing the Provincial Councils, continued the speaker, was also one which he hoped would never be adopted. That was to hand over vast revenues, and to say that they should be under the entire control of the Provincial Councils. The third method of solution, which his hon. friend for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was in favour of two years ago, was the Canadian solution, not a very happy one. That method was that the central Exchequer should provide the bulk of the revenue, and that if the Provincial Councils wished to finance themselves comfortably they would have to impose taxation of their own, and certain sources of taxation would be handed over to them. If the Commission had to consider a question of that kind it was impossible for the chairman to proceed unless he knew what was going to come before the Provincial Councils. He was astounded when he read the Estimates presented to the House. He had no expectation at all that such large estimates would be made in the case of the Provincial Councils for such matters as buildings, roads, and bridges. He wished to point out that if the Commission were appointed immediately, their financial expert from England, who was to be chairman of the Commission, would arrive in the country knowing nothing at all of the special circumstances of the country. Take the matter of scab. He supposed that all Would feel that a matter of this kind was a matter of national importance which, would necessarily come under the Union Government, but nothing of that kind would be known to the chairman of the Commission Therefore, how was it possible for the chairman of the Commission to get to work when he did not know whether such a great question was going to be dealt with by the Union Government or the Provincial Councils? Under section 85 of the South Africa Act they found that enormous latitude was left to the Union Government. Unlike the Canadian system, the Provinces had not exclusive powers whatever. As far as he read the Act, all powers were within the control of the House and the Central Government, and if the financial expert came out from England there would be nothing to guide him as to what were the intentions of the House. Nothing was reserved to the Provincial Councils under the Act, and if the financial expert came out from England now he would stand by the document. He would say: “What powers were given by this document to the Provincial Council?” and he would be bound to say: “Nothing.” The whole power was given to the central Parliament. That Parliament could take every power into its own hands, and, therefore, however he read the Act, it seemed that if the chairman of the Commission had been appointed soon after the 31st of May, he would have said that he had nothing on which to proceed with his work, and would have returned to England, promising to come back when they had decided what they would leave to the Provincial Councils. He thought that the Governments had made a perfectly correct use of the discretion left to them in not taking action as early as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) desired. The Minister of Finance had referred to the time which he supposed was likely to be taken by this Commission. Now, it was believed that education would account for quite half the expenditure of Provincial Councils. That question was to be left to the Provincial Councils for a period of five years. Well, this Commission was going to sit for several years to decide what was going to be done. It was bound to know what was the policy of the Government and of that House in regard to this important question, and he thought the Government had acted wisely in giving the House a full opportunity of discussing the question before appointing the Commission. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had accused the Government of being autocratic in that matter. Well, if there were anything more opposite to the truth than that he (Mr. Fremantle) would like to hear it. Was it autocratic for the Government to defer the appointment of the Commission in order to give the House full opportunity of discussing the matter? Through that discussion hon. members had been enabled to hear a good deal of each other’s opinions, and he thought the Government was triumphantly vindicated in having put off the matter until the meeting of Parliament. He believed the Government, had the approval of the country in the course they had taken. The Government had already made three dear state-merits of their policy in the matter. He hoped the fourth statement of the Government’s policy would be more successful in conveying the meaning of the Government to hon. members opposite—(Opposition laughter)—a meaning which was quite clear to hon. members on the Ministerial benches. The Government might be well trusted to do what, was right in regard to the future conduct of this matter.

said that unfortunately these “triumphant vindications” of the Government were of constant, every-day occurrence, and they lost their value through being picked up at every street corner. The hon. member who had just spoken seemed to find in this motion a vote of no confidence in the Government. Well, so far as he (Mr. Duncan) could read it, it conveyed nothing of the sort, and the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) seemed to be the only person who imparted that meaning into the motion. The hon. member seemed to have done so in order to lead the debate off the track, away from the main issue. He had dealt with the proposal as though it conveyed a vote of censure on the Government, for not having appointed this Commission on the 31st of May. Well, everyone in that House knew that the Commission could not have been appointed then. What was asked in the motion was that the Commission should be appointed now. If the Government were to adopt the line of defence taken up by the last speaker, then it would mean that the time for appointing the Commission would not arrive until all the duties and functions of the Provincial Councils had been fully defined. Well, he was afraid that would not be for years. There were many difficulties that had to be considered. Parliament might at any time delegate certain duties to the Provincial Councils. The Government could do so, too, but he hoped it would not. They could not hope to get everything until the Constitution of the Union had been in working order for some years. If the Government adopted the line of defence it seemingly proposed to take up, it meant that the appointment of this Commission was going to be indefinitely postponed. And what they wished to know was, whether the Government intended to adopt this line of defence? But he hoped they would adopt the line of defence indicated by the Minister for the Interior, who said that the Government hoped to appoint this Commission within a short space of time. If the Government intended to postpone the appointment of this Commission for an indefinite period, then he thought that they were justified in bringing up this question. As to the duties of this Commission, it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was a real reason for the immediate appointment of this Commission, and that argument was that, until this Commission issued recommendations as to the financial relations between the Provincial Councils and the Union, the Provincial Councils would have to live on grants from the central Government. That was, he thought, a most unsatisfactory method of financing the Provincial Councils. It was quite true that the Councils would find it necessary to get grants for a time, but the records of government in this country should teach them that the period should be curtailed as much as possible. If they once started this custom, and allowed it to run on too long, they would find it a matter of great difficulty to wean the Councils from it. He was not so much impressed by the centralisation of government argument, though he quite agreed that there was this danger. The present system of financing the Provincial Councils would prove a radically bad one if it were allowed to go on for any time, and for that reason alone he thought they should press for the immediate appointment of this Commission. It was not as though the Commission was to have executive powers— it was merely a commission of inquiry— The Union Act, as a matter of fact, defined broadly the duties of the Councils. At any rate, he urged upon the House not to accept the answer of the Government to put off the appointment of the Commission until the duties of the Provincial Councils had been defined.

said he much regretted the debate. He was glad that the hon. member for Fordsburg had made it clear that the Opposition were divided among themselves on the question at issue. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had made it appear as if the Commission ought to have been appointed immediately after 31st May, whereas the previous speaker had admitted that the Government did have some discretionary power. If the Opposition had from the start taken up the attitude it was taking up now there would have been no difficulty; but the difficulty had arisen because the Opposition wished to do something which no Parliament of the people ought to allow. He welcomed a debate on any work, or any administration, on the part of the Government, because a public debate such as that gave publicity to the work of the Government, which was just what it wanted. He was very glad to see that publicity was given to matters affecting the country; but he must add that he entirely disagreed with the mover of the motion (Mr. Jagger). The matter on which the difference of opinion had arisen was this: Had the Government any discretion in the matter or not? He did not think the motion was justified, because, as a matter of fact, the Government did have discretion. The words dealing with the matter in the South Africa Act were “zoodra mogelijk” (as soon as possible). If what the Opposition contended were correct, the word would have been “ommiddelijk” (immediately). His-reading of that matter was that the Government had not failed, Recording to the letter and the spirit of the law, because it was certainly given discretion. Therefore, the appointment of that Commission had not been unduly delayed. The Government was fully sensible of the importance of the Commission, and because; it wanted to make the Commission as effective as possible, there had been this delay. There was no intention at all of unlimited delay, and it was their intention to appoint the Commission as soon as possible—(cheers)—because there was no particular reason for waiting any longer. (Cheers.) What he did regret was that the mover of the motion had not withdrawn it after his (General Botha’s) colleague had spoken on the matter, and made it clear that the Government had that discretion. The hon. member’s failure to do so had given him the impression that there might be something more behind the matter than on the face of it. (Government cheers.) If there was any idea at all of desiring to move what amounted to a vote of no confidence in the Government, he could understand the motion not being withdrawn after the explanation which had been given. He hoped that the hon. member Would withdraw the motion, because if he did not, and the motion was agreed to, which would be tantamount to saying that the discretionary power given to the Government by the Constitution had been wrongly exercised, it would be a matter of want of confidence in the Government. The Government had tried to act fairly to everyone in South Africa, and for that reason it was impossible for them to accept that motion.

said he was only sorry that the Prime Minister had not risen the other day instead of the Minister of Finance. He welcomed the speech of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, because—he would not say because it put a different aspect to that put by the Minister of Finance—but certainly it put a different interpretation on what was no doubt intended by the Minister of Finance. So far as he could make out, the Minister of Finance first answered the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) that the Government did wish to appoint this Commission immediately, but on communication with the Imperial Government, it was found impossible to find a chairman Next the Right Hon. the Prime Minister talked about the discretion of the Government. (Laughter.) He could not see that the motion interfered at all with the discretion of the Government. But the Minister of Finance commenced splitting straws as to the meaning of “as soon as may be” or “as; soon as possible.” He (Dr. Jameson) thought they were the two phrases used. (Laughter.) That was the second line of defence. Unfortunately for the Government, his hon. friend the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) came to their rescue at that stage. (Laughter.) As the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) said, he generally did come to the rescue, but sometimes not very adroitly, as on this occasion, with his recently-acquired and exact, he (Dr. Jameson) was sure, knowledge of Dutch. He found that the different Dutch translators of the Union could only express the two different expressions put forward by the Minister of Finance by the same Dutch words. Well, of course, they might not be good translators; but, as far as he remembered, the Minister for Education was responsible for that translation. (Laughter.) The Minister for the Interior also had something to do with it. So he thought on this occasion the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) must be accurate, and so the second line of defence absolutely broke down. They had heard during the past fortnight a good deal of autocratic government, for which, perhaps, the Minister for the Interior, who had said he was fond of Oriental methods of legislation, was responsible. That had put one on the qui vive to see whether the Eastern potentate might not be found creeping out, and only that afternoon there had been an instance in the Bill before the House a few minutes ago. He (Dr. Jameson) did not think there had been any intention of the kind, but some of his friends, might be excused if they were a little suspicious. No doubt the reasons given by the Hon. the Minister of Finance for delaying the appointment of the Commission made some of this friends alarmed lest the Government was anxious to carry on the financing of the Provincial Councils without the advice of the Commission of Inquiry. He felt sure that his hon. friend (Mr. dagger) had never had the least idea of denying the discretionary powers of the Government and he thought his hon. friend would be well advised if he withdrew the motion, after the statement made by the Prime Minister, which, so far as he could understand, meant that this Commission, notwithstanding the little differences as to the interpretation of “as soon as may be ”, or “as soon as possible,” would be appointed at the earliest date possible. (Hear, hear.) With that assurance he thought they might be content.

begged leave to withdraw his motion.

Leave was granted, and the motion withdrawn.

moved the adoption of the report by the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

The motion was agreed to.

said that when the matter was last before the House the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) stated that, notwithstanding the idea of having an Imperial Conference, at which the naturalisation of aliens would be discussed, Canada passed a Naturalisation Act. He (General Smuts) had since found that the Canadian Act was assented to in January. 1907, but the Imperial Conference was not held until the following May. The Imperial Conference considered the question of naturalisation, and he supposed the subject would be brought before the next Imperial Conference. Under the circumstances, he thought we should not adopt a procedure of our own in this matter. His real objection to the amendment went further. They said that he was not going to naturalise Asiatics. If this amendment were adopted there was no doubt that the final result would be that the House would give power to the Minister of the Interior to naturalise Asiatics. They had only to go to Mauritius to find that there was no bar on Asiatics, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), were adopted, they could come here, and it would be entirely in the discretion of the Minister of the Interior to naturalise them or not. Now, he thought that the House ought not to put such a weapon into the hands of any Minister. They had an Act in the Cape Colony which said that Chinamen might not be naturalised in the Cape Colony, but they had no such legislation in any of the other colonies. It showed in what direction the mind of the people was turned it showed that they did not want the naturalisation of Asiatics, but the amendment would open the door to that. He was very glad that the discussion had been so full. The subject would be discussed again at the Imperial Conference next year. Clearly, the door had been closed in the Cape Colony by the Chinese Act of 1906, and that contained the provision to which he had referred, viz., that a Chinaman might not be naturalised in the Cape Colony. But that provision was no longer in force, and his hon. friend —a distinguished member of the Cape Bar (Mr. Alexander)—would agree with him that it was no longer possible to naturalise people in the Cape Colony because the Cape Colony did not exist any longer. Consequently the bar had gone. They might have tomorrow a Minister of the Interior who would say that he was not going to naturalise a person and they might have a Minister the next day who would say that he was not going to draw this invidious distinction. He might say he was going to naturalise Asiatics because he was simply carrying out the instructions of Parliament, and he thought it would be well for them to go slowly, and await the solemn deliberations of the Imperial Conference and the action of the Imperial Parliament upon that Conference, and not introduce amendments which had far-reaching effects.

pointed out that his amendment simply said that a person naturalised in another British colony, on coming to South Africa, should be allowed to take out he naturalisation papers at once, instead of having to wait two years. He was glad that the discussion had taken place. In view of what the Minister had said in regard to Imperial action he would withdraw his amendment.

said that one of the Minister’s arguments was without foundation. He stated that the Act of 1904, dealing with the question of the naturalisation of Asiatics, was no longer in force in Cape Colony. As a matter of fact it was still in force, because clause 135 of the South Africa Act said that all laws in force in the several colonies at the establishment of Union should continue in force until repealed or amended. As the Minister had undertaken to bring the matter before the Imperial Conference, he was quite prepared to withdraw his proviso.

The amendment was withdrawn, together with a further amendment by Mr. Alexander.

On sub-section (a) of clause 4, particulars to be given by applicants for naturalisation,

moved that the paragraphs be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

moved to delete the words “two issues,” for the purpose of inserting “one issue.” He thought it was sufficient to require one publication in the “Government Gazette.”

said he would be prepared to agree to the deletion of the words “two issues of.” Then it would have the effect the hon. member desired.

amended his motion accordingly.

The amendment was agreed to, and the sub-section, as amended, was adopted.

On sub-section (b),

moved to insert after the words “Justice of the Peace,” the word “Field-cornet.”

moved further to add “or an attorney-at-law, a notary public, or a Commissioner of Oaths.” He said that applicants experienced many difficulties in getting certificates. In many cases a man might not be acquainted with a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace, whereas he might be known to an attorney or notary.

said he would accept the first amendment (Mr. Alexander’s), but as to the other amendment, he thought that went too far. There must be some reliable, independent person to certify to the character of the applicant. Attorneys would look after the interests of their clients, and they would really be interested parties. He moved to omit “or” after “magistrate.”

said he thought the amendment-deserved consideration. It must be remembered that many of these people were in humble circumstances, and he thought it would be sufficient to require a reputable citizen to certify as to character—say a Mayor or Town Councillor.

did not think there was any real hardship in requiring that a man should be known to a Justice of the Peace. It would be dangerous to go further.

moved the following amendment: In paragraph (b) in line 21, after “peace” insert “or field-cornet”; in line 22, omit all the words beginning with “the applicant” and ending with “and that.” He said that it would be difficult, for example, in a large city like Cape Town, for a J.P. to know personally many of the applicants, the Bill stating that a J.P. would have personally to know the applicant before granting a certificate of naturalisation. His amendment would not leave any loophole open to abuse, and would enable a J.P. to give a truthful certificate that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the applicant was a suitable person and a man of good character.

who seconded, said that if that amendment were not carried, the first business which a man had to do if he wished to become naturalised was to become personally acquainted with a J.P., otherwise he could not get his naturalisation papers. Before the Immigration Laws excluded undesirable persons, perhaps those words were necessary, but he did not think they were now.

said that he would be sorry to accept the amendment of his hon. friend, but he would rather drop the certificate altogether. In the Transvaal he had relied to a very large extent on the certificates of J.P.’s, but if it were no longer necessary to have a certificate, and such persons had merely to give negative reports, what good would they be? Every person was, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a fit and proper person for naturalisation, and such a certificate could be conscientiously given by a J.P. regarding a person whom he did not know at all. He thought that was going much too far. The Bill had for its whole object to simplify matters in connection with naturalisation, and now to do away with the necessary safeguards would be a great mistake.

thought it was a wrong principle that a person should first have to be personally known to a J.P. before the latter could grant him a certificate. A man who was quite a desirable person in every way might hesitate about getting naturalised, because he knew that there was no J.P. who was personally acquainted with him. He considered that the Minister was pursuing a wrong policy, and that he should waive his objection to these words.

The amendment of the hon. member for Gape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander)—-to insert “field-cornet” was agreed to. The remainder were negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

Clause 4 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved that the last eight words of the clause be deleted, and the words “appeal shall be to the Governor-General-in-Council” be substituted.

moved in line 29 to omit “Minister” and substitute “Governor-General”; in line 30 to omit the words “with or without assigning any reason”; in lines 31 and 32 to omit the words “and no appeal shall lie from his decision,” and to add the following proviso to the clause: “Provided that the Minister shall from time to time lay on the table a list of applications refused, together with the reasons for such refusal.” The hon. member said it was offensive to see words of this kind in the Act of a free country.

said he did not think these amendments should be accepted by the House. The first amendment, substituting Governor-General for a responsible Minister, would make no difference, except additional work for the Governor-General. He thought the time had now come for them to consider most seriously whether they were going to continue to burden the Governor-General with a number of details of administration. All references to the Governor-General meant nothing else than that his signature was required. When they had the volume of business that was now passed through the Governor-General it had become absolutely impossible to consider the retention of the custom. That was why it was proposed that the Minister who was responsible should sign these documents. Why they should also be signed by the Governor-General passed his comprehension. The Governor-General was merely a formal authority, and that being so, he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Alexander) would be satisfied with the Minister. Then there was a further objection raised to the words “with or without assigning any reason.” Decisions, he thought, were always made without particular reasons being assigned. The hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir David Hunter), moved that there shall be an appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) moved that the appeal shall be before Parliament. Well, it would be an impossible job for the House to deal with all appeals. Besides, the Governor-General-in-Council could not sir as an authority of appeal. It was well known that the Governor-General sat merely as a formal authority. So he hoped his hon. friend, on constitutional grounds, would not press his amendment. He also hoped the hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir David Hunter), would not press. A man might have been a perfectly honourable member of society in this country, and have done something wrong in another. Why should that be disclosed in the House? He thought it would be most invidious. He did not think it was a good policy that these applications should be made before the House.

said that if the proviso were not going to be accepted, he would rather the words remained in. It was not his intention that the papers should be published, but laid on the table. If the Minister had inserted the words, “No appeals shall lie to the Courts,” an opportunity would have been given of bringing the matter before Parliament. He hoped the Minister would not seek to arrogate such autocratic powers to himself.

asked if there was to be no appeal to Courts, what was the object of the words, “and no appeal shall lie from his decision”?

said the word “appeal” did not apply at all in this case. The object, he thought, was to prevent an appeal to the Law Courts.

said that if the Minister wished to remove any doubt, he should put in the words, “and no appeal shall lie to any Court from this decision.”

The amendments moved by Mr. Alexander in line 29 to 32 were negatived.

His other amendment and the amendment by Sir D. Hunter accordingly dropped.

On clause 8,

moved, in line 46, after the words “British subject,” to insert “born in the Union.” There was he said, a case now pending shawling the great importance of the amendment, for under certain Cape laws persons born in South Africa had greater Privileges than natural born British subjects, not born in South Africa.

said that he did not think the amendment was necessary.

said that if one was not going to give these people their rights, the whole Naturalisation Act would be a farce. Unless the Minister for Education put in the words, “born in South Africa,” there would be great difficulty under the Act. He (the hon. member) considered the amendment a most important one, because unless naturalised persons were given that protection there would be discrimination between them and natural born British subjects born in South Africa If the amendment were not accepted, the alien naturalised hero did not get the same rights as persons born in the country.

said that if there was anything in this (Mr. Alexander’s) contention, he ought to go much further. His contention, in a nutshell, was that a natural barn British subject born elsewhere did not get the rights which a natural born British subject in South Africa had The hon. member must now go a step further, or that natural born British subjects born in South Africa, should have the same rights. They did not have the same rights. They had a natural born coloured British subject, born in the Cape Province, who could get a vote in that Province, but not in other parts of the Union, so that even in South Africa they did not have natural born British subjects all having the same rights. It was impossible to go into all these inequalities. They knew that there were these distinctions, and there were special laws for each case; and these laws would apply.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 10.

moved the following amendment: Add at the end of paragraph (2) “and shall on application be entitled to receive a certificate to that effect from the Governor-General.” The hon. member pointed out that a large number of persons who became naturalised had their wives and families elsewhere. Say that a man had a son of five years of age living elsewhere when he became naturalised. Under the law that son would become naturalised, but what proof had he when he became of age? How could a man satisfy the Registration Officer that his father was naturalised, say, sixteen years before? He could assure the House that many persons were left off the register because they could not prove their father’s naturalisation. He contended that a child should be able to get some proof of his father’s naturalisation in addition to the papers given to his father.

said it was not necessary to provide for such a certificate by Statute. The difficulty could be met in another way. A naturalised person could at any time obtain a certificate that at the time of his naturalisation he had certain children, as stated in the particulars given in his original application. The Department would always be in a position to give any necessary certificate, but it would be unwise to multiply those certificates by Statute.

said there was no provision in the Act that a person applying to be naturalised should give particulars as to his children. They were giving the child rights, but they were withholding from him the opportunity of proving those rights.

said that to his mind the amendment was perfectly reasonable. As the matter stood, people (would have to trust to officials, and no appeal would lie.

said that the next proposal might be that the grandchildren should get certificates.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, and progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.

from F. Sturge-Brain, lockup-keeper, Warrenton, praying for recognition of previous services in the Cape Mounted Riflemen and Cape Police, and for condonation of a break in his service for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from George Hall, a pensioner from the late Table Bay Harbour Board, Cape, praying the House to consider his age of 74 years, and to grant him further relief.

from F. G. W. Taylor, clerk in the Postmaster-General’s Department, who served as a teacher in the Education Department for five years prior to his entering the postal service, praying that the said service may be recognised for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from A. R. E. Nichol, late accountant, Colonial Secretary’s Department, Cape, who served for 19 years until December, 1908, when he was retired on pension on abolition of office, praying for favourable consideration of his case with a view to reinstatement in the service, or for other relief.

from L. Merkel and ten others, late members of the Cape Civil Service, who were retired under Act No. 37 of 1908, on abolition of office, praying for the grant to them of the maximum number of years in accordance with the length of their respective services for pension purposes, or for other relief.

from Daniel Bailey, stationmaster, Retreat, who served in various capacities for 27 years, praying that certain breaks in his service may be condoned for pension purposes, or other relief.

from W. Jones, of Rosebank, who served as teacher in the Education Department for six years until 1904, when he resigned, but re-entered in September, 1806, praying for condonation of the break in his service for good service allowance purposes, or for other relief.

from F. Ward, brass-finisher, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in August, 1891, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the pension fund from November 2, 1895, to November 1, 1903, or for other relief.

from Chas A. Thomlin, fitter, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in March, 1892, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from September 21, 1895, to September 20, 1903.

from C. Read, chargeman fitter, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in October, 1889, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from July 6, 1895, to July 5, 1903.

from U. J. Abrahams, tinsmith, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Gape Government Railways in April, 1888, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from December 1, 1892, to November 30, 1903.

from A. D. Lewis, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in June, 1894, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension. Fund from August 10, 1895, to August 9, 1903.

from C. W. Reeks, fitter, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in June, 1892, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from November 2, 1893, to November 1, 1903.

(1) Report of the Council of the University of the Cape of Good Hope for the year ended December 31, 1909 (G. 27-’10). (2) Reports for the year ended December 31, 1909: (a) The South African College Council; (b) the Rhodes College Council; (c) the Huguenot College (G. 14-’10). (3) Report of the Superintendent-General of Education (Cape of Good Hope) for the year ending September 30, 1909 (G. 12-’10).

Report of the Port Captain, Durban, for the year ended December 31, 1909.

Return in accordance with the provisions of section 3, Act No. 26 of 1907 (Transvaal), of particulars of the nomination of a gentleman to fill a vacancy on the Board of Management of the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank.

Estimates of Expenditure of the South African. Railways and Harbours for the 10 months ending March 31, 1911 (U. 2-’10).

Index to the principal resolutions, Bills, and printed Select Committee and Commission reports of the House of Assembly, 1854-1910, prepared by the staff of the late House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope, and forwarded to Mr. Speaker by Sir Ernest Kilpin, K.C.M.G.

That a Select Committee on Public Accounts be appointed; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Messrs. Creswell, Currey, Duncan, Sir George Farrar, Messrs. Fremantle, Jagger, Langerman, Orr, Robinson, Walton, and the mover. Mr. Hull, in moving the motion, said he would like to take the opportunity of explaining to the House the proposals they had in view with regard to this committee. As hon. members knew, the usual work of the committee was to examine the annual reports of the Auditor-General upon the appropriation account of the year. Well, the Government intended to enlarge the scope of the committee very extensively. Hon. members who were familiar with the work usually done by the committee would recognise that this committee was one of the most important—if not the most important—of the committees appointed by Parliament, and for that reason hon. members would agree with him that the personnel of such a committee should be carefully selected, and that the gentlemen called upon to work on the committee should be familiar with the working of the financial machinery. He could not do better than quote from the report of a Select Committee appointed by the British House of Commons to inquire into the national accounts. Six or seven years ago the British House of Commons appointed a Select Committee, which went into the question of national accounts. He thought he was right in saying that the best financial experts that the House could produce gave evidence or served on the Select Committee. In the report that was presented, every witness bore testimony to the increasing value of the committee as a check on wasteful expenditure, and the Auditar-General said he valued its services very highly, for the reason that it helped to maintain economy in the public departments. Having referred to the report of the British Committee at some length, the speaker said there was one thing he wished to touch upon before he went on to explain the proposed functions of the committee for which he was moving. It reported, as they knew, upon the annual accounts of the year. He believed that it had not been the practice in South African legislatures to set a day apart for the consideration of the report of the committee. It was only when something of a sensational character was contained in the report that a day was set aside for consideration. Again, he thought that the report of the committee should be sent to the Treasury for its observations, and that a day should then be set aside for the consideration of the report. There was another suggestion he would like to make, and that was that at all these meetings the Controller and Auditor-General, or the Secretary to the Treasury, should be present. That was done in, the British House of Commons, and he thought that it should be adopted here. There was another suggestion, but he did not think that the time was quite ripe for this suggestion to be carried into effect. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in England was usually selected from among members sitting on the Opposition benches. Here it had been the practice to appoint a Minister as Chairman, and he should like to see the time come when no Minister would act on the committee. He thought the committee should be selected from among the best possible men sitting on both sides of the House. With regard to the size of the committee, he thought a smaller body would be far more effective. The additional functions would greatly increase the work of the committee, and would materially increase its importance. He thought Parliament should endeavour, as far as possible, to use this committee to assist in dealing with the expenditure estimates of the year. The proposals were, briefly, these. Assuming that the Public Accounts Committee was set up and he did not think there would be any objection, his proposal was this: At the end of each session— before the conclusion of the session.—the Public Accounts Committee should indicate what part of the Estimates for the ensuing year it would examine during the next year. That was to say, that he proposed to divide the Estimates into three sections, nearly as equal as possible. The Public Accounts Committee, he proposed, at the beginning of each year should deliberately examine one-third of the assets. The suggestion was that, while the committee had this third under consideration, there should be no discussion in the House until the report was presented. Of course, in the meantime the House would be able to discuss the remaining two-thirds, but in respect to the one-third being considered by the committee, no action should be taken until the recommendations of the committee were placed before the House. The greatest care, however, would have to be observed in safeguarding three points. One was that Parliament should not divest itself of the power to discuss these Estimates, or having the last say in the matter. In the next place care should be taken that Ministerial responsibility for military expenditure should not be interfered with; and in the third place care should be taken to see that the examination by the Public Accounts Committee should not involve criticisms of policy. The proposals of the House of Commons Committee five or six years ago were very much of the same nature as those he was now submitting. They had not yet been carried into effect in the House of Commons; but he had no doubt they would be in due course. Some of his friends were rather enamoured of the system which the Cape had. Well, from inquiries he had made, he would not say that system had failed, or broken down; but he did think that considerable exception could be taken to the system. He was informed by the Controller and Auditor-General that, in his opinion, the system was breaking down, and that what was taking place was this—that the head of a department would, be called before the committee, and he would be asked—

said he must point out that if he allowed a debate to go on this wide subject, he must allow members on the other side to continue it. He hoped the Minister of Finance would confine his remarks to the subject matter of his motion.

said he felt satisfied that if his proposals were adopted a much more satisfactory system would be created than had hitherto been in vogue in South Africa.

said that if the Minister of Finance would, amend his motion slightly, the House could discuss the further proposals he had made in the course of his remarks. The sort of committee he had indicated to the House had much wider functions than a Public Accounts Committee. A Public Accounts Committee simply inquired into the reports presented to Parliament by the Auditor-General a year or more after the money had been expended; but if it were to deal with the national expenditure in the way the Minister had suggested, it could only be done by the Minister putting his proposals formally before the House. He thought it would be more convenient for Parliament to deal with the whole matter now.

said that either the debate could be adjourned until the subject matter on the motion on to-morow’s paper had been disposed of, or this committee could now be appointed, and notice of a further instruction could be given later on.

said that the course proposed to be adopted was to move to refer the annual statement of accounts of the Auditor-General and the railway accounts and the Estimates to the committee, as each was laid on the table.

said that if the House appointed a committee to deal with public accounts, it could not deal with anything else. Questions of public health, say, or the Estimates, could not be referred to it.

asked whether it would not be competent, if the committee were appointed, to refer to it the Estimates and the railway accounts by resolution of the House?

Such a resolution would be quite in order.

said it was quite true that the Public Accounts Committee was of considerable value, but its value was limited to dealing with accounts which were twelve or eighteen months old. It could detect errors and misdemeanours, but it could not prevent them. The committee had nothing like the same value in controlling and checking expenditure as the other committee would have. The Minister of Finance was not quite right, in one respect. It had always been the practice of the Cape Parliament to consider the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and long discussions bad taken place in Parliament on the details of that report. Then the Minister of Finance suggested that the Controller and Auditor-General, as the permanent head of the Treasury, should attend the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee. He (Mr. Walton) could only say that the plan had never been adopted in the Cape Colony, and personally he thought it very questionable. He thought me debates in committee would be far freer if the permanent officials were not present. The officials might give the committee help and information, but he did not think they should take part in the discussions of a body appointed by that Parliament to bring up a report to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the presence of a Minister on the committee, they had always had a Minister in the chair at the Cape. Such a Minister was able to give information to the committee which an ordinary member of Parliament was unable to give; and the Minister, in a few words, could give information which would dispose of a morning’s discussion, perhaps, and save several hours. In conclusion, the hon. member said that he did not intend to oppose the motion, and hoped that the Hon. the Treasurer would be able to accept his (the hon. member’s) proposal on the following day.

said that at the present time they had no indication of what public accounts meant. It was true that in the Constitution Act an Auditor-General was appointed by the Governor-General. What he wanted to be clear about was whether the Auditor-General of the Union had any power to report on the accounts of the four colonies existing previous to the Union coming into force. Some of them were aware that after the Act of Union had come into force, three of the Auditors-General of the four colonies had rapidly been got rid of, while the Auditor-General of one of the colonies had been appointed as Auditor-General of the Union. It had not been made clear to him whether the Auditor-General had the power of reporting to that House on the accounts of the different colonies for the previous years or not. The hon. member did not agree with the Minister being a member of the committee, a practice which, he said, was not followed at Home, nor in Natal, previous to Union. The practice in the latter had been to have an independent member in the chair. To his mind, it was highly improper that a Minister should be chairman of that committee, or be chairman and report upon his own acts. The course adopted in the British Parliament was that the Auditor-General presented his report to the Public Accounts Committee, which considered that report, and then presented its report to Parliament; and the latter adopted such of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee as it thought fit; and after Parliament had came to its decision the Treasurer drew up a memorandum. He thought it would be improper, and getting, as it were, behind the Public Accounts Committee, to refer the report to the Treasurer before it went to Parliament. The Controller and Auditor-General and the Treasurer ought to be present in the talking of evidence by the committee, but he did not think they should be present when the committee was considering its report.

I hope that the Hon. the Minister will, according to section 137 of the South Africa Act, repeat his remarks in Dutch.

The Speaker cannot compel an hon. member to make a speech in one language or another.

who agreed with the remarks of the hon. member for Maritzburg, said that if the Committee on Public Accounts were to be “confused ”—he must use that word— with the committee which was to examine expenditure, a difficulty must arise in dealing with the two subjects, which he thought would be very much to the disadvantage of public business. There were two methods: examination of accounts past and examination of accounts to come.

The motion was agreed to.

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the question of arranging for the production Of an official Hansard for the House: the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs. Walton, Brain, Watt, H. W. Sampson, and the mover. In doing so, the mover said: Last week this House referred this matter of Hansard reporting to a Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. That committee, when it came to consider the subject, found it was so difficult and surrounded by so many other matters to be considered, that it thought it was better to have an independent committee to deal with that matter. The result is that the report was framed, and this motion of mine ideals with that now.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the debate on his amendment to add at the end of paragraph 2 of clause 10 (Status of married women and children), “and shall on application be entitled to receive a certificate to that effect from the Governor-.General.” Mr. Alexander said that he hoped the Minister of the Interior would relent somewhat, in his very harsh handling of amendments moved by hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House. The amendments were honestly intended to improve the Bill; they were not proposed with any hostility to the Government. He must confess that he was rather surprised that the Minister had adopted so hostile an attitude to what could only be considered a very reasonable amendment, and one that would improve the Bill before the House. The House was much fuller that it was on Friday last when he moved his amendment, and for that reason he would reiterate his arguments. Members would be aware that, under the Bill, as under all naturalisation Acts, if a father became naturalised, all his children who joined him in the country where he became naturalised, while under the age of 21 years, were deemed to be naturalised under his naturalisation. But there was no provision in this Bill for either including the names of the children under the naturalisation certificate at the time it was granted or giving them a supplementary certificate afterwards to show that they had been naturalised. He agreed it would be a difficult matter if his amendment proposed that the children’s names should be included in the father’s naturalisation and nothing more, because the wife and children might be abroad, and might not join him for many years. The Minister might say, “How do I know that they will join their father at all?” His amendment, however, said that when a child joined his parent, that child should be deemed to be naturalised. Now, what was the good of giving a person a right if they were not going to allow him to prove it? There was no good giving a right in the abstract if they were going to deny him the right to prove his right. He understood that the Government was bringing in this measure to facilitate naturalisation, and to give children the rights of naturalised subjects, but the Minister had said, “Where are we going to stop? He (the speaker) might as well ask that grandchildren should be included.” Now, it was obvious that grandchildren did not require a naturalisation certificate, hut this was a specific and special case, and his amendment was carrying out the principle laid down by the Minister, and was in no way in opposition to the Bill. He could not see the slightest reason for the Minister not accepting it. It was not a party measure, and in proposing amendments he was simply (actuated by a desire to make the measure more workable and to safeguard the rights of the people.

said he wished again to urge the objections which he urged on Friday last to the adoption of this amendment. In the first place let him say that although this clause was copied from other naturalisation laws existing in South Africa, and in other parts of the British Empire, there was no precedent anywhere for the amendment which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) was attempting to force upon the House. There was absolutely no precedent for such a provision, and they could understand the reason. If such a certificate were given it would not be a naturalisation certificate; it would be something quite different, and a number of questions would arise before such certificate could he issued. There, was the question of the residence of the children, and also the question of the legitimacy of the children, and these, among others, would have to be inquired into before the certificate could be issued. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) had said that he (General Smuts) gave a right, but did not give a remedy. That was not so. The remedy was there the same as in the case of any other person who was in this country, and wanted to prove that he was a British subject. He thought it would be a most difficult matter in view; of the fact that the machinery was not provided to deal with the issue of certificates. That being so, he did not think that such a departure or such a precedent should be made. He did not object to the amendment in any hostile spirit, but simply because the amendment would lead to great confusion.

said that the amendement was perfectly reasonable, and considered that the difficulties had been very much exaggerated by the Minister of the Interior.

asked what was to prevent the issue of the certificates to children as naturalised subjects. The naturalisation of a father naturalised his child, who was entitled to a certificate of naturalisation, It was only a question of issuing more certificates. He thought that the refusal of the Minister to accept the amendment was little hit discouraging to immigrants, who wanted to adopt our nationality.

supported the amendment, and appealed to the Minister to accept it.

said that if the amendment were passed, the Minister of the Interior’s office would become a pass office, and the documents which he would issue would really be only so many passes, and not letters of naturalisation. This matter, added the Minister, appeared a simple one to laymen, but lawyers could grasp its difficulties.

said he could not understand the Minister of Justice describing the certificates as passes, unless it was an ingenious attempt to make the whole thing appear unattractive, or else it was the hon. gentleman’s natural failing to refuse to give way when once he had put his foot down. (Laughter.)

pointed out that with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters, an elector must be a British subject, either born or naturalised, and it was quite open to the Registration Officer to call for proof. Natural born British subjects could produce their birth certificates, but the children of naturalised aliens would have no such proof. If they wanted these people to become citizens of this country, it was Parliament’s duty to make it easy for them.

said it was a matter for the exercise of a little common sense. The points that had been raised as to why certificates should not be given appeared to him to be satisfactory. Foreigners coming to settle here might, leave behind them families, which later on might follow them here. But the parents might be working in one part of South Africa, and their sons hundreds of miles away in another, and it might be exceedingly difficult for the latter to prove their parentage, or their rights to be recognised as citizens of this country. To the lay mind there seemed no difficulty in carrying out the amendment. If they wished to see a large population settled here, they must make the country attractive; but they would not do so if they put all sorts of difficulties in the way of people becoming naturalised. It was not a matter of party at all, but of common sense. (Hear, hear.)

expressed the opinion that the certificates would he of considerable value.

said there was a clear distinction between a child born in South Africa and one born outside the Union. He hoped the Minister of the Interior would place facilities in the way of the children of those intending making this country their home to become naturalised subjects of the Union. (Hear, hear.)

said that the House would force him to grant certificates without giving him the power to make adequate inquiry. He had no machinery to inquire into the facts. The trouble would become even greater if they did not give him enough power. He had no discretion, and yet he would be forced to issue certificates to people not entitled to them.

said that in the case of a natural born British subject a birth certificate was recognised as sufficient. In the case of an alien the Minister could surely ask for the birth certificate of the sons a man professed to have.

pointed out that the Minister was creating difficulties that did not exist. They said that if a father was naturalised, the children of that man should also be entitled to the same certificates. He considered that the Minister had the fullest power of inquiry, and he pointed out that as statements were made on oath, the responsible Minister had full control. This question of legitimacy was an entirely new phase of the subject.

said that the Minister of the Interior had been rather inconsistent in his arguments. At first the Minister, replying to the hon. member for Cape Town, had said there would be no difficulty in doing what was wanted, and now, when the point was put, he declared that a tremendous amount of extra work would devolve upon his staff. He thought that a reasonable and fair amendment had been put before the House by the hon. member for Cape Town, and that the House should not allow it to drop without a division.

thought that a birth certificate was the best proof, and the only proof that could be, or would be, demanded.

asked the Minister of the Interior to reconsider the position.

said it was necessary that the Minister should have power of inquiry.

said that the Minister bad power under the Bill as it stood. The case which it was sought to provide by this amendment was not an imaginary one; cases of the sort had actually arisen. He hoped the matter would be reconsidered, and that it would not be forced to a division that day.

said he had to bring a case of this sort before the House in the Cape before it was remedied. He assured the Government that the hardship was a real one.

said that the Bill required that applicants should be personally known to a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace. If the difficulties of the Minister were great, how much more difficult it must be for applicants to produce absolute proof?

said that if the amendment were withdrawn, he would consider the matter again and see whether something could not be done to meet the views expressed so strongly by the House

suggested that the clause should stand over.

said he was anxious to get on with the business. He could not possibly accept the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Alexander), which was absolutely unworkable.

hoped the Minister for the Interior would agree to the very reasonable request that the clause should stand over.

said he desired to get on with the Bill without delay. The other House was waiting for work. If the clause were passed now, he could draft, an appropriate amendment and move it later.

said the clause could be allowed to stand over, and they could deal with it on the third reading. There would be no unnecessary delay.

said he would move that the clause stand over. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.

moved a new clause 15 as follows: “Any alien may purchase, acquire, own and dispose of immovable property in the Union in the same manner as natural-born British subjects; provided that this section shall not qualify any alien for any office or any franchise which such alien does not now by law possess, nor entitle an alien to any right or privilege except such rights and privileges in respect of immovable property as are hereby expressly given to him.” The mover said he wished to remove any doubt which might exist in the law of this country as to the ability of aliens to own property. He referred to Act 8 of 1856. The hon. member pointed out that both Sir Thos. Upington and Mr. Leonard, who was Attorney-General of the Cape at the time, thought it was necessary to re-enact the clause in the Act of 1883, which had now been left out by the Hon. the Minister of the Interior. As the old Cape Act considered it necessary that the clause should be put in, it was not a matter of too extreme caution that it should now again be put in. The previous legislation of the Cape Colony seemed to assume that aliens do not possess these rights to own property, and so it had been thought necessary to put in a clause dealing with that matter.

said that he could not accept the amendment for several reasons. Firstly, it was not a Bill dealing with aliens, but a Bill dealing with the naturalisation of aliens. (Hear, hear.) In the second place, there was no doubt about the law whatever; there was no provision in the law such as the hon. member had referred to, and no bar under the Roman-Dutch law against an alien holding property. Thirdly, if the amendment were passed, it would abrogate a most important provision in the law in the neighbouring Provinces, where Asiatics were not allowed to hold property.

The Asiatics the hon. member refers to are British subjects; they are not aliens at all, and they were born in a portion of the British Empire. (Hear, hear.) If there is such a law as the hon. member has referred to, I am very sorry indeed to hear it, but he has evidently not allowed the Roman-Dutch Law to stand in the way. Continuing, the hon. and learned member said that if the new clause was going to result in certain consequences in the other Provinces, it could be limited so as to apply only to the Cape Province. The Hon. the Minister of the Interior repeated the whole of the Cape Act of 1883, which certainly did deal with aliens, and the repealing clause did deal with aliens. That was in answer to what the Hon. the Minister had said about the Bill not dealing with aliens.

The proposed new clause was negatived.

moved the following new clause: “15. Should any foreign State have entered into a Convention with His Majesty to the effect that subjects of that State being once naturalised as British subjects may divest themselves of their status as subjects of such foreign State, and should there be required by the laws of the State or by such Convention for such divestiture upon or after naturalisation in South Africa, residence for a period longer than the two years in section 3 of this Act referred to, or service or residence for a definite period where no period is so mentioned in that section: A certificate of special form may be applied for, such certificate to set forth upon such evidence thereof as the Minister may require, such further facts as may be required for the purposes of such divestiture of foreign status, as well as the facts required for the ordinary purposes of naturalisation.” The hon. member having explained the effect of the new clause, said that if the Hon. Minister would give an assurance that the matter would be brought before the Imperial Conference next year, he would be prepared to withdraw it.

giving the necessary assurance,

withdrew the proposed new clause.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Wednesday.

had given notice that in clause 2 he would move that the following be a further proviso: “Provided further that nothing in the preceding proviso contained shall be construed as limiting the liability of the Crown or the Government or any department thereof in respect of any fraudulent act or omission on the part of its servants, if the claim be made within the period specified, and the action be instituted subject to the conditions imposed by law.” The hon. member, however, withdrew it, saying that he understood privately from the Minister of Justice (General Hertzog, Smithfield) that he was going to introduce a General Postal Act for the whole of the Union, and that the question which he (the hon. member) had raised would be dealt with therein.

said that some anxiety existed in his constituency in regard to the assimilation of the liabilities of the various Provinces, and he would be glad to hear from the Minister of Justice a declaration of a reassuring character.

said that the liabilities would be assimilated, as the laws in the various Provinces were assimilated. They were starting with the more urgent ones, and he thought that probably 100 laws would have to be assimilated within the next year or two. With regard to the Postal Bill, he wished to say that it had been drafted, and would be laid before Parliament within the next week or two.

On clause 3.

moved, in line 16, to omit “justice” and substitute “the department concerned.”

said that a difficulty would arise in finding out who the Minister concerned was.

supported Mr. Nathan.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 4.

moved, in line 20, to omit “may” and substitute “shall.”

said he had no objection to the amendment, but he thought the word “shall” would be unusual.

said he was prepared to withdraw.

said that if the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Quinn) withdrew his amendment, he would reintroduce it. Without the amendment, the Minister concerned, after judgment had been obtained against the Government, could say, “I am not going to pay out.”

said that it was perfectly obvious that if judgment were obtained against a Minister, he would pay out. In fact he must pay out, for the sake of his position as a Minister. They were dealing with the Crown, and the insertion of the word “may” was only a matter of politeness.

said that he was opposed to the amendement. It was quite obvious that the Crown was not going to repudiate its liabilities.

With the leave of the House,

withdrew his amendment.

moved in line 20 to omit “Minister of Justice” and substitute “nominal defendant or respondent ”; and in the same line to omit “appropriate revenues” and substitute “Consolidated Revenue Fund or, if the action or proceedings be instituted against the Minister of Railways and Harbours, out of the Railway and Harbour Fund.”

thought the Governor-General’s consent would have to be obtained to the amendment, as it was one affecting expenditure.

The Bill does not order moneys to be paid.

It legalises it.

But not authorises it.

was understood to say that the matter had better remain over for the present in order that inquiry might be made into the point.

accordingly moved that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again on the following day.

The motion was agreed to.

moved in sub-section (b) to omit the following words, “or as to costs only which by law are left to the discretion of the Court and no interlocutory order.” The mover said the sub-section was going to take away a right which was conceded in clause 103 of the South Africa Act. Very often mistakes were made by judges, and with regard to interlocutory orders clause 103 of the South Africa Act gave the right to appeal from a one judge Court. The object of the sub-section in the Bill under discussion was to take away that right altogether. When they saw the number of decisions which had been upset by the Appeal Court since May 31 they ought to think twice before taking away the right of appeal, because even in regard to interlocutory orders a very important point might be concerned.

said he hoped that the amendment would not be accepted. The hon. member would admit that nowhere, had there been allowed an appeal from an interlocutory order except with the consent of the judge. He pointed out that in the South Africa Act these minor things had been overlooked at the time the measure was framed. The question of costs lay in the discretion of the judge.

said while he did not wish to embarrass the Government, the Minister had unintentionally misled the House. Section 103 laid it down with regard to appeals on the question of costs there could be an appeal without the judge making an order as to costs. He did think this was another illustration of how hasty they were in bringing these matters before Parliament at this early stage. There were many other matters which had come to his knowledge but which could not be discussed in that committee. He hoped the Minister of Justice would consent to a motion to report progress on the Bill, and to take it when there was further information.

said it was difficult for ordinary members of the House to vote in the absence of expert information He hoped the matter would be allowed to stand over, and that steps would be taken to introduce a comprehensive measure dealing with Provincial Courts, as well as the Appellate Court.

said that section 103 of the Act of Union was very clear on the point. There was nothing to take away the discretion which previously existed; the discretion was reaffirmed. In this Bill the discretion to grant leave to appeal in certain cases was again reaffirmed, and the law was not changed.

said that the measure proposed to take away the right of appeal on a question of costs.

said the point was that there was an alteration proposed in this clause of the law, which was laid down in section 103 of the Act of Union. What was proposed by this measure was that the appeals should now be made from a judgment of a Provincial Division as to costs, not upon leave given by the Court of Appeal; but upon leave given by a Judge of the Provincial Division.

hoped that the Bill would be referred to a committee.

said that what the Court of Appeal felt was that if any party felt aggrieved with regard to costs, he should first get leave from the Judge who heard the case. He thought that the provision was necessary in order to prevent vexatious appeals.

said that he could not hear what the Minister of Justice had said. Did he say that he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bechuanaiand?

was understood to reply in the negative.

said that he must protest against the way in which the Bill had been taken up. Hon. Ministers had come to them in the early days of the session in what he might call “an acute state of indigestion ”—(laughter)— as to these Bills, and tried to crush hon. members of the House, and refused to accept any amendments from them. That was really bringing the whole procedure of justice in the country into contempt. The hon. member advocated the Bill being withdrawn, and more maturely considered by a committee before being re-introduced.

Really, I do not see how the hon. member can accuse me of trying to suppress any hon. member of the House. (Laughter.) With regard to the Bill itself, I think hon. members will admit that it was drafted by those who felt the necessity of it; and, really, as I have already said, by men to whom we owe every possible debt, as far as law is concerned in South Africa, for what they have done. I can only say that this Bill has been very well weighed, and based on what was found to be necessary by Judges of Appeal. He added that, as far as he was concerned, at any rate, he would think it presumptuous on his part to say that it could be better drafted; but some of the younger hon. members of the House might be more competent, perhaps, to say that than he. (Laughter.)

said he thought the last explanation of the Minister was that he had not framed the Bill himself; but that it had been framed by some eminent legal authorities. He thought that the better plan would be to report progress, so that the Minister of Justice, in the meantime, could obtain a report from those eminent legal authorities which would explain matters. (Laughter.)

Now I begin to see why I did not get a direct reply to my question. The Minister does not quite know himself why this Bill was introduced; but certain eminent legal gentlemen desired to see it introduced (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that he did not know who those eminent legal gentlemen were to whom reference had been made; he presumed that they were the Judges of the Court of Appeal. He had the highest respect for them and their knowledge of law; but what the House was discussing was the effect of the Bill on the public, and the duty of that Parliament was to make the laws, which the Judges had to carry out. He did not think it would be the duty of the House merely to accept the whole Bill because it had been drafted by Judges. He was strongly of opinion that the amendment of the member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels), so far as it applied to costs, should be accepted by the House.

said that where the question of appeal was left to the discretion of the Judge, almost invariably leave would be refused, and he appealed to the House to accept the amendment in so faras it concerned costs.

said that the Minister was deliberately trying to alter the South Africa Act, and he appealed to him to allow the matter to stand over for more consideration.

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

said the clause was a radical innovation. It laid down a dangerous principle, viz., that the Court of Appeal would be able to hear fresh evidence. At present Courts of Appeal based their decisions on the evidence led in the Courts below. He moved, as an amendment, to delete the words entitling the Court of Appeal to hear fresh evidence.

supported the clause as printed. It was easy to contemplate the necessity of fresh evidence in order to arrive at a proper decision.

supported the amendment brought before the committee. He said he would like to know from the Minister of Justice, who was at the back of this clause, because they had never had heard of such a procedure in South Africa. It would make litigation most expensive. It was such a novel clause that he hoped the amendment would be pressed to a division.

asked who was to review the decisions of the Court of Appeal. The functions of the Court of Appeal by this clause would be set aside. It was an impossible position.

said he could assure the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) that if he erred in laying down something that was unjust he was erring in good company. This provision, so far from being a novel one, was a very old one, in the Transvaal, at any rate, and the Bench there had found from experience that it was a very wise and just provision indeed. It was also an old provision of the English law in regard to criminal procedure. But the question was whether it was a provision which would act to the detriment or to the advantage of the community. The position was that a man on appeal might find that the Court of first instance had decided on a point on which the case really ought not to have turned. The judge on appeal might find that unfortunately the judge of first instance had not quite seen what the point was on which the case should have been decided, a point perhaps of vital importance. It might be quite formal evidence which was needed to put the matter right before the Court of Appeal, and this Bill gave the Court power to take such evidence and to settle the matter without waste of expense. The alternative was to refer the case back again, and to incur all the extra cost which that would involve. The provision was made in order to save expense, and surely that should appeal to hon. members who knew the tremendous increase there had been in the cost of litigation. The Court of Appeal was not necessarily going to take long evidence. All that was done here was to give the Court power to take evidence only to the extent to which the Court found it was fair and just, and would save expense. The Court would surely act intelligently, and would not have all the evidence repeated. Litigation must be cheapened as much as possible. It would entail enormous expense to refer back an entire lawsuit from Bloemfontein to say a Circuit Court at Prieska. It was, he maintained, a wise provision, and it was one which had acted well in the Transvaal since 1804.

In how many cases?

Of course, that is difficult to say; but if there were only one case it shows that a Judge of Appeal knows it is a remedy, only to be made use of in exceptional cases. Undoubtedly, continued the speaker, unless they went with suspicion against the Court of Appeal they had no right to keep back from the Court this power, which could only be used for the benefit of the public at large.

said it was not a question at all of suspicion of the Appeal Court. It was simply a question of principle as to whether the Appeal Court should be essentially different in its operations and jurisdiction to a Court of first instance. The Appeal Court decided whether a legal decision drawn from facts was a correct decision. It had been a universal principle in the Cape Courts that there was a presumption, when an appeal was brought on a question of fact, that the judge of first instance was the best judge of that question of fact; and if it had happened, as the Minister of Justice said, that the judge of first instance had taken evidence upon a wrong legal point, it was always perfectly competent to refer the matter back to the Court of first instance to take evidence again. If it was only going to be an exceptional provision, what became of the Minister’s plea that the old procedure of referring the matter back to the Court of first instance was an expensive one, and that it piled up costs? The two things were absolutely inconsistent. The new procedure had only been brought in in the Transval in 1906, and had been brought in only once, he believed, in the four years, so that it did not seem to be of much value. Surely the Hon. Minister was not going to upset the procedure of the Cape Courts, which had been there for so long?

said that he sincerely hoped that the House would not accept the amendment, but take the clause as printed, because it now gave to litigants and the public generally a benefit which they had much required in the past, and which they had not had in the Cape. His hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Long) appealed to old custom and precedent, but what was meant to be covered by that clause was to give the Appeal Court a power, which it did not possess at present, to deal with particular cases in which they had facts presented under which there might be every possibility that if they knew one more fact or had additional evidence, it might make all the difference in the world. (Hear, hear.) That clause was intended to supply a want, and when the Court of Appeal said that it would like to know what the fact was with regard to some matter, it could call evidence. Did the hon. and learned member know that in the rules of the Supreme Court of England there was an exactly similar procedure such as that?

In the criminal law?

Both civil and criminal.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

This was agreed to.

Leave was granted to sit again to-morrow.

from Francina E. S. Commaille, widow of the late John L. C. Commaille, formerly a clerk in the Deeds Office, Cape Town, praying for an increased pension from the Widows’ Fund, or for other relief.

from W. M. van Gorkum, who served for nearly 25 years under the former Orange Free State Republic, after which he was awarded a pension, praying that certain period of service, which he believes was not accounted for, may be recognised, and that he may be awarded an increased pension, or for other relief.

from George Simpson, a wagon foreman, Salt River Railway Works, who entered the service in June, 1882, praying for permission to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from July, 1886, to June, 1888.

from J. Hardie, late foreman in the Railway Department, Cape Town, who served since 1897, with a break in his service from September, 1901, to July, 1902, praying that the said break may be regarded as leave without pay, or for other relief.

from T. J. Hall, who served as a labourer in the Salt River Railway Works for 21 years, until September, 1910, when he was retired at the age of 60, praying for consideration of his circumstances, or for other relief.

from A. J. Bosman, widow of the late W. A. Bosman, who served as a police constable, Beaufort West, for more than nine years, and died as the result of a cold contracted whilst on duty, praying for consideration of her circumstances, or for other relief.

from H. D. van der Schyff, stationmaster in the service of the Railway Department, who entered the service in October, 1888, praying that he may be allowed to contribute arrears to the Pension Fund from 1888 to 1895, or for other relief.

from L. C. Kunz, widow of the late J. A. Kunz, who served as a police constable from December, 1897, until May, 1909, when he died, praying the House to consider her circumstances and to grant her relief.

Proposed grant of lots 160, 162, 171, 172 and 173, Bodiam, Peddie, as a site for an undenominational public school; grant of rest camp at Tsolo to the Transkeian Territories General Council; proposed grant of lot 136, Douglas, to the Dutch Reformed Church; King William’s Town—proposed grant of lot 24, Berlin, to the German Lutheran Church; application for site for Anglican Church, Kuruman; application for grant of garden lot 59, Knapps Hope Mission Station, King William’s Town, to the London Missionary Society; Hay— transfer of lot 126, Griquatown, from London Missionary Society to Dutch Reformed Church; application by English Church for a site at Campbell; application by Anglican Church for title to church site at Hlobo, Nqamakwe; application for church and school site at Zangokwe, Queen’s Town, by Wesleyan Methodist Church; application for permission to erect a parsonage on the Dutch Reformed Church site, Kenhardt; application by P. S. Lawlor for title to trading site at Mhlahlane, in the division of Nqamakwe; establishment of a public cemetery at Bizana; application by United Free Church of Scotland for title to church and school sites at Ludondolo, in Magqoboka’s Location, and at Esinqumeni in Ginyigazi’s Location, district of Idutywa; application by Wesleyan Methodist Church for new church and school site at Cegouana, Butterworth; cemetery accommodation at Nqamakwe; application for sale of garden lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, near King’s Cross Township, King William’s Town; application by Dutch Reformed Church for church site on farm Uitkyk, Native Reserve, Wodehouse; application by C. H. Reeves for title to trading site at Qwaninga, district of Idutywa; establishment of a public cemetery at Hoedjes Bay, Malmesbury; proposed establishment of agricultural institution in the district of Mqanduli; application by Mr. A. W. Mitcham for a fishing site at Gericke Point, George; application for public library site, Port St. John’s; squatters on Middelvlei, Caledon; Worcester Agricultural Show Ground.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF MINES, seconded by Mr. VAN EEDEN:

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Number of cattle imported into the Western Transvaal from the Cape Province, 1st January, 1910, to date; and cattle imported from the Orange Free State into the Western Transvaal during the same period.

Blue Book on Native Affaire, year ended 30th June, 1909 (Transvaal); Blue Book on Native Affairs, year ending 31st December, 1909 (Natal); copy of regulations framed under section four of the Urban Areas Native Pass Act, No. 18 of 1909 (Transvaal); copy of Government Notice No. 246 of 1910, amending the regulations framed under section four of Act No. 18 of 1909 (Transvaal).

Township at Liliefontein, Orange Free State.

Administrative and clerical service officers of the late Transvaal Colony retained in the Public Service after the age of sixty years in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-three (2) of the Public Service and Pensions Act, 1908 (Transvaal).

asked: (1) What free railway passes were issued to or retained by ex-members of Parliament within the Union between May 31 and November 4, 1910; (2) by whose authority this was done, and for how long were the passes available; (3) how many were returned; (4) how it is intended to deal with the matter on business principles, or otherwise, in the accounts?

replied that 324 passes were issued, but fourteen gentlemen were so sensitive that they returned their passes. (Laughter.) As to the question by whose authority the passes were issued, he said that he gave instructions. “The hon. member,” continued Mr. Sauer, “asks how it is intended to deal with the matter on business principles or otherwise. Well, I am afraid that the matter will be dealt with otherwise.” (Laughter.)

asked the Minister of Lands whether it has been brought to his notice that the piece of Crown land known as “Freddy,” No. 316, Ward Hogeveld, district Rustenburg, is occupied by natives to the great inconvenience of the surrounding Europeans, and, if so, whether it is his intention to give notice to those natives to remove from the said piece of ground and to allot the same to Europeans, in accordance with the provisions of the Transvaal Crown Lands Disposal Ordinance?

In reply to the hon. member, I beg to say that I am at the present time in communication with the Native Affairs Department on the subject of the occupation of the farm “Freddy” by natives, and that I propose to take steps for their removal as soon as possible after they have reaped their crops, and the removal can be effected without injustice to them.

asked the Minister of Finance whether the Government will consider the arduous position of Civil Servants in the Cape Province who, after foregoing increases for a number of years, had recently had 5 per cent. deducted from their salaries, with a view to the return to such officials of the amounts still remaining so deducted?

The question was withdrawn.

asked whether the Government will introduce a Bill for the abolition of trial by jury in criminal cases, and substituting therefor a trial by three judges, or, if not, whether, in order to ensure uniformity, a Bill will be introduced during the present session varying the law of trial by jury in criminal cases, so that a verdict of not less than seven of the jury shall determine the verdict, as at present in the Transvaal Province is provided by section 8 of Act No. 38 of 1909?

said that with regard to the first part of the question, Government had no intention of introducing such a Bill. The latter question was being carefully considered by the Government in connection with the code of criminal procedure which it would be necessary to frame.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the conditions regarding the immunisation of mules, hitherto in force in the Transvaal, and now extended to the Cape Colony and the Orange Free State under Government Notice No. 908, has been extended to Natal, and, if not, whether this will be done?

The conditions regarding the immunisation of mules against horse-sickness will be extended to Natal at an early date; in fact, almost immediately. The delay was due to the veterinary staff in Natal being short-handed. The Government desires to treat all the Provinces alike.

asked whether, in view of the large production of mealies in certain parts of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, the Government intends to lower the railway freight on grain, so that the producers may be enabled to obtain more markets for their produce within the Union?

was understood to say that the question would be taken into consideration.

asked whether any steps have been taken to increase the branch of the Transvaal Police Force which deals with the suppression of illicit trade in liquor, as recommended on page 15, paragraph 24, in the Transvaal Liquor Commission Report?

said that provision had been made for native detectives in connection with the liquor trade. The recommendations of the Commission were being considered.

asked whether the Government intend to introduce legislation during the present session to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Municipalities within the Union; and, if not, whether legislation will be introduced to amend the Municipal law of the Cape Province?

I have suggested to the Administrators the advisability of appointing a Commission to consider the reform and consolidation of Municipal laws of the various Provinces, with a view to bringing them up to date, and in greater harmony with each other. In view, however, of the difficulties which have been raised against my proposals, I do not intend to take any further steps in this direction for the present.

asked whether the following figures of the death-rate of natives employed on the mines and works of the Transvaal, and imported from territories north of latitude 22 deg., are approximately correct, viz.: In the year ended June 30, 1907, 70.5 per 1,000; in the year ended June 30, 1908, 63.4 per 1,000; in the year ended June 30, 1909, 67.8 per 1,000; in the year ended June 30, 1910, 63.5 per 1,000?

replied that these figures were taken from the Transvaal Blue-book for last year, and, as far as he knew were correct. He wished to point out that these figures represented deaths from disease only.

asked the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation repealing those sections in Act No. 39 of 1908, and Act No. 16 of 1909, passed by the late Cape Parliament, which impose stamp duties on certain classes of medicines and toilet preparations; and, if so, when?

said that there was no intention on the part of the Government to introduce legislation on the lines indicated by the hon. member.

asked the Minister of Education whether it is the case that one of the members of the Transvaal Council of Education is at present employed on the staff of the Normal College at Pretoria; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that one of the functions of the Council is to advise in regard to Normal Colleges, he considers it right that a member of the teaching staff should be placed in a position to advise the Government on matters relating to the department, otherwise than through the head of the department?

said that the vice-principal of the Normal College, Pretoria, was one of the members of the Council of Education; one of the members of the teaching staff of the continuation classes was also connected with the Council. Their being on the Education Council had helped to keep the Council in living touch with educational development in the Transvaal, and was in the general interests of education.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the Government will publish the accounts of the first year’s working of the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies; (2) whether it is a fact that the salaries of the manager and the staff during the first year’s working were paid by the Agricultural Department, and, if so, whether the amount so expended has been refunded; (3) what rent the Central Agency pays to the South African Railways for the storage of maize at railway stations; (4) to what extent is the credit of the Land Bank involved in any contracts at present being carried out by the agency; and (5) whether the Central Agency at the present time is indebted to (a) The Land Bank; (b) the Government; and, if so, for how much?

asked the hon. member to allow the question to stand over for a day or two.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when a commencement will be made with the construction of the proposed telephone line from Nylstroom, via Zandrivierspoort, to Zwagershoek, and from Warmbad to Settlers’ Siding.

said that the work was in hand, and would probably be completed in six months’ time.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether the Government will take into consideration the desirability of connecting Amersfoort and Volksrust by telephone?

was understood to say that the work would be completed in six months’ time, it having been authorised.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, and, if so, when, he will reduce the freight on mealies and other produce carried by the Pankop Railway, in order to make it uniform with the tariff charged by the other Transvaal railways, so as to enable the farmers of the Spring-bokvlakten to place their produce on the principal markets under the same favourable conditions as other Transvaal farmers?

said that there was no intention at present to reduce the rates on the lines mentioned in the motion, but the question would be considered in connection with the general alteration of rates, which he might say was under consideration. (Hear, hear.) Until that time his hon. friend would have to wait; he might have to wait after that time (Laughter.)

asked the Minister of Justice whether the Government intends to introduce legislation during the present session to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the courts of Resident Magistrate within the Union; and, if not, whether legislation will be introduced to amend the law relating to the courts of Resident Magistrate within the Cape Province?

replied that the Government did not intend to introduce legislation for consolidating during the present session the law relating to Resident Magistrate’s Court in the Union, or amending the law in the Cape Province. Information was being collected with regard to framing a law, and this would be submitted to Parliament in due course.

asked the Minister of Justice whether it is his intention, during this summer, to provide the police who serve in the malaria districts of the Transvaal, and more especially on the borders of Waterberg, with better dwellings than the huts in which they are at present living?

replied that the matter was under consideration, and until some definite scheme bad been framed it would be undesirable to erect stone buildings which might afterwards have to be pulled down.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the Agricultural Department has made any experiments to combat or exterminate the prickly pear by means of the cochineal insect, and if so, with what result; (2) whether he is in a position to state whether any other cheap and effective remedies can be recommended to farmers; and, if so, (a) if any of these remedies are manufactured in this country; (b) to what extent, if any, the Government contributes to the cost of these remedies; and (c) whether the Government will take into favourable consideration the question of supplying farmers with these remedies at a low figure?

The Department of Agriculture has not made any experiments to determine if prickly pear may be destroyed by any kind of cochineal insect, but it has been making inquiries to ascertain the foundation for the recently published story that the prickly pear pest in India was suppressed by such an insect. No reply to inquiries sent to India has yet arrived, but information from other sources removes most of the hope that one might have that South Africa has much to gain by introducing the particular insect said to have worked such wonders in India. The identity of the particular cochineal insect concerned, and likewise the identity of the particular sort of prickly pear which it destroyed, appears to be in doubt. But the destruction took place half a century or more ago, and since then prickly peers of the same sort have again become pestiferous in the region, and the insect is no longer abundant. It is quite possible that the insect is the same as the wild cochineal that is widespread in South Africa on a scraggly sort of prickly pear that grows on waste lands about the towns. This insect does not take to the pest prickly pears, and it has not been noticed to kill down any plants, and the fact that it is unable to kill its foodplant may be accepted as indicating that the form found in India would thrive no better were it introduced. The cheapest, and at the same time most effective, remedy is that known as Jansens preparation. This consists of a solution of lime, sulphur, salt, and arsenate of soda and can be made up by any farmer. The formula, with full directions as to use, was described in the March number of the Gape “Agricultural Journal,” and farmers can obtain full information from the Department of Agriculture. The Government supplies arsenate of soda at cost price, but does not supply or contribute to the cost of the other ingredients. The Government does not see its way to give any further assistance than that already afforded.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is the intention of the Government to provide a sum on the Estimates to expropriate the New Gape Central Railway line, or any portion thereof, and, if not during the present session, whether it will be done in the near future?

replied that the Government was not prepared to take over this railway, and he did not think that the Government would be justified in asking Parliament to spend the money at the present time. The time would come, however, when the railway would have to be taken over. It was getting more valuable every day, and the sooner it was taken over the better.

asked the Prime Minister whether the regulations in force on the Natal-Pondoland border as to traffic crossing that border are similar in character and effect to those in operation on the Transkei southern border, and, if not, in what respects do they differ?

The regulations in force on the Natal-Pondoland border are not similar in character and effect to those in operation in other parts of the Transkeian Territories. On the Natal-Pondoland border there is no communication between the Gape and Natal of any description, except that human beings may pass into Natal through Middiedrift, and the postbag is delivered to and from over the border by hand. On the border between the Territories and the Gape proper there is no restriction on the movements of human beings or vehicles. As regards animals, only cattle are prevented from crossing into the Cape proper, The restriction on goats is only in respect of hides, skins, and horns, which must be disinfected before they are removed into the Cape proper, and can moreover enter in three places.

asked the (Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that under the present system of payment on the Gape lines, railway guards are paid for the time occupied upon each trip only, and are thereby deprived of the opportunity to work full time and earn full wages; and also that this hardship applies to that section of railway employees alone; and (2) whether the Government will give consideration to this grievance in any reorganisation scheme they propose to adopt?

was understood to say that guards on the South African Railways within the Cape Province were paid on a ten hours’ day computed on the actual running time of each trip plus half-an-hour for preparation.

asked the Minister of Finance: (a) When will the sea-borne traffic to the competative area be apportioned so as to faithfully comply with the terms of the Mozambique Treaty; (lb) what is the total tonnage of traffic lost to the points of the Union, due to the percentages of traffic allotted to each Union port under the Mozambique Treaty not having been reached, between April 1, 1909, and October 31, 1910; and (c) is it the intention of the Government to compensate the ports of the Union by such additional readjustment of railway rates as will reimburse them for the loss of a large proportion of their legitimate seaborne traffic?

replied it was only yesterday that they came to an agreement regarding the rates to be charged in future from Union ports to the competitive area. To-morrow (Wednesday) or the following day he would be prepared to make a statement to the House giving full information.

asked the Minister of Mines whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce into the proposed Bill to amend the Mines and Machinery Law a clause limiting underground work on mines to eight hours a day?

in reply, stated that the Government was considering the question of regulating the hours of work in certain parts of the mines. It was hoped to publish a statement that would give the hon. member full information.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether it is a fact that 300 white employees of the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., were retrenched early in this month; (2) whether the native labour in the employ of that company was also largely reduced at the same time; and (3) whether the Government will introduce legislation at an early date providing for a scheme of insurance against unemployment to ensure to mine and other workers the same liberal treatment as that meted out to Colonel Burns Begg?

I have no official information in regard to this matter, but by the courtesy of the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., I am informed that 87 White employees have been retrenched by the company, of whom 82 were daily-paid men, and five were on the staff. I have no information as to the reasons for this retrenchment. Secondly, I understand that no retrenchment of natives has taken place. Thirdly, I have no information to give the hon. member on this subject.

asked the Minister of Public Works whether the Government will place a sum on the Estimates for the purpose of either purchasing the present Barkly West Bridge or erecting a new one, or in some way relieving the inhabitante of the Barkly West district from the grievance caused by the exorbitant toll at present payable, and on placing the said inhabitante in the same position as those of other places in the Union?

replied that in terms of the Act of Union, this was a matter for the Administrator and the Provincial Council. He had been informed that it had not been found possible to place an amount on the Estimates for this bridge, but believed the matter would come up for consideration at a later date.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether in the Transvaal Province the Rietfontein Lazaretto and Chronic Sick Home come under the administration of the Union Government, while all other hospitals are under the control of the Provincial Council, and, if so, why?

Both these institutions have been controlled by the Administrator since the 31st of May last.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (a) Whether he has taken notice of a report by one of his inspectors who, about a month ago, inspected the buildings of the Magistrate’s Court at Wolmaransstad, condemned the same as being a danger to the lives of the officials, and, as a precautionary measure, had the building propped up; (b) whether he does not agree with his predecessor and the Prime Minister that new and suitable buildings are urgently required; and (c) whether provisions for this purpose will be made on the Estimates?

The Court-house was inspected by an officer of the Public Works Department, at the end of October, when it was found that the north gable had bulged, and was in danger of collapsing. This has been propped up, and the building rendered safe for a few months Secondly, I do not agree with the Prime Minister that the new buildings are urgently required. Thirdly, money has not been specially provided in the Estimates for the present year, as they had been framed before the building reached a dangerous condition. However, in view of the urgency of providing a new building plans will at once be prepared and arrangements will be made for the work to be gone on with.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government is prepared to start next year with the inoculation of horses against horse sickness which prevails in the Transvaal, and, if so, on what terms?

replied that Government hoped very soon to be in a position to arrange for the inoculation of horses against horse-sickness, and anticipated similar success to that achieved in regard to mules.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of a lighthouse at Slangkop, and, if so, when?

No decision has been come to.

asked the Minister of Public Works if it is the intention of the Government to provide a station for wireless telegraphy in the Cape Peninsula, and, if so, when and in what locality?

It has been decided to erect a wireless telegraph station in the Cape Peninsula, and the site selected, after careful investigation, is at Slangkop, near Kommetje. A contract has been entered into with Messrs. Marconi and Co., and it is anticipated that the station will be in working order within a period of from three to four months. It is a five kilowatt station, and will have a day range of four hundred miles. At night the range will be from 600 to 1,600 miles.

called attention to an error in the Division list for the “Ayes” on the motion yesterday in Committee of the Whole House when the Division took place on the amendment proposed by Mr. Wessels in the Appellate Division Further Jurisdiction Bill, on page 117 of the Votes, in which the names of Messrs. Keyter, Brain and C. J. J. Joubert do not appear although they so voted while the name of Sir Henry Juta was erroneously inserted therein, although he was not present.

having called upon the Tellers for the “Ayes” who examined the list, they reported that the names of Messrs. Keyter, Brain and Joubert had been inadvertently omitted therefrom, and that the name of Sir Henry Juta had been erroneously included therein, and the list was ordered to be corrected accordingly.

I should like to call the attention of the House to Notice of Motion No. I on page 122 of the Votes, standing in the name of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha), and Notice of Motion No. II, on page 124 of the Votes, standing in the name of the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat). Under the Rules of the Late House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope, it was the practice for a private member when desiring to propose a motion involving expenditure, to move for an Address to His Excellency the Governor for leave to consider such motion. If suck motion were carried, it rested entirely with the Government to make a recommendation to the Governor asking for his authority, or to leave the matter where it was if they deemed it proper to do so. The rules of the late Cape House of Assembly now govern the procedure of this House, but where these rules are in conflict with the provisions of the South Africa Act, 1909, the latter, of course, must prevail. I have for some time past given careful attention to the provisions of the new Constitution and particularly to those dealing with the finances of the country, and, although at first sight the proposed motions appeared to me to be out of order, I instructed the Clerk to leave them on the paper so that, if necessary, a definite ruling upon this important aspect of our procedure could be given from the chair for the guidance of the House. After giving the most careful consideration to this matter I have come to the conclusion that the terms of section 62 of the South Africa Act are so explicit as to leave no room for doubt that it was the deliberate intention of those who framed the Act to preclude private members for the future from bringing in motions in any form, the effect of which would be the expenditure of public money. In the British North America Act, 1867, a similar provision to that contained in the Sleuth Africa Act is to be found, but with this modification, however, that in that Act the words “adopt or pass” are used instead of the stronger words “originate or pass” which appear in section 62 of the South Africa Act, and I learn from the authorities that in Canada “no principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the Executive Government of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.” (Bourinot, 3rd Edition, page 568.) Although, therefore, the motions referred to, if carried in their present form, would not in my opinion have the effect of authorising the expenditure of money, they undoubtedly in the words of the Act “originate an address for the appropriation of public revenue” and I, therefore, rule that the proposed motions are out of order and must be discharged.

moved for a return showing: (1) The approximate cost of fencing erected or in process of erection by the Government in connection with the East Coast fever: (a) In Elliotdale district; (b) along the Kei; and (c) from the Kei eastwards. (2) The number of: (a) Cattle dipping tanks; (b) spraying machines in existence in (i) Elliotdale district; and (ii.) each of the other districts of the Transkei Proper and Tembuland; (c) the approximate cost of the erection of the said tanks and spraying machines; (d) the approximate cost of dipping operations at the said tanks and spraying machines per month; (e) the amount contributed towards the cost named in (2) (c) and (d) by (i.) the Transkeian Territories General Council; and (ii.) by the Government. (3) The number of dipping supervisors in each district. He said he thought the information would be useful as an indication of what had been done by the Government in that part of the country. In respect to a compulsory Dipping Act, the Transkei might be said to be ahead of a great many other parts of the country. He thought the Government might co-operate with the people by seeing that the utmost use was made of the tanks that had been built. They knew that dipping cattle once a month, or twice a month was not of very much use to prevent East Coast fever from attacking them. They should be dipped at least three times a month, and to ensure that they must have more tanks. He hoped the Government would aid in this matter, and at least co-operate with the people there. With regard to the fence along the Kei, which fenced in purely a coastal district, there was a difference between that and the other fence round an affected area. The fence along the Kei was about 80 to 100 miles in length and was for the benefit of the whole country. He was glad it was not the intention of the Government to make that fence a charge against the Territories. In conclusion, he would be glad if some hon. member would move as a rider to his motion that the district of Griqualand, east of Pondoland, be included.

seconded.

(4) The same details as above with regard to the Districts of East Griqualand and Pondoland.

seconded.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

moved: That the petition of B. de Villiers and 3,420 others, being Civil Servants of the late Cape Government, and now of the Union of South Africa, presented to the House on the 15th instant, and praying that the 5 per cent. deductions made from their salaries for the year ending June 30, 1909, should be restored to them, be referred to the Government for inquiry and report. The hon. member said the petitioners only asked that a simple act of justice should be done to them. During the period of depression through which the Cape Colony passed, in addition to the ordinary taxation levied, the Civil Servants bore an extra burden in having a percentage of their salaries deducted as well. It was only the direst necessity which made the Government introduce what must have been to them a very obnoxious measure. The principle that at the earliest possible moment the deductions should be restored to the Civil Servants was approved by the late Cape Parliament. A few months before entering the Union the right hon. member for Victoria West introduced a measure providing for the return of the deductions which had been made for the year 1909-10, but at that time the right hon. member was not in a position to tell the House that there was going to be a financial surplus of such a magnitude on entering Union that it would be possible to restore more than the deductions for the one year. It was the universal opinion in the late Cape Parliament that they were going to enter into Union on the basis that revenue and expenditure should meet, but it was not the intention of that Parliament to hand over to the Union Government a large sum of money taken from the pockets of the Civil Servants of the Cape. After the payment of the deductions for 1909-10 there was still a surplus of over £177,000, and if the deductions for 1908-09 had been paid back, the Cape Colony would still have shown some surplus on entering the Union. The surplus actually handed over was simply one swollen by the amounts taken from the pockets of Civil Servants, and he hoped the Government in those circumstances would take into favourable consideration the petition that had been presented. The other Provinces made more liberal provision for their Civil Servants than the Cape Colony was able to do, so that no injustice would be done to either the Transvaal or Orange Free State if the prayer of the petitioners were acceded to.

seconded.

said that after the mover of the motion had heard what he had to say he would probably think it better to withdraw his motion. The hon. member moved that the petition should be referred to the Government for inquiry and report. To that extent he (Mr. Hull) had no hesitation in committing the Government. The Government had no objection to inquiring and reporting, but he could hold out absolutely no hope to the hon. member that the prayer of the petitioners would be acceded to. The position was a perfectly simple one. Before leaving, the Government of the late Cape Colony made the fullest inquiry into the matter, and came to a deliberate decision upon the investigations made, and he thought it would be an evil thing for the Government of the Union, or even for the Union Parliament, to sit in judgment upon the decision arrived at by that Government.

The hon. member said that the other colonies had made more liberal provision for their Civil Servants than the Cape Colony; but so far as the late Transvaal and the late Orange River Colony were concerned, no provision of that kind at all was made. In those colonies no salaries of Civil Servants were increased, and no pension allowances were increased. They had their rights preserved under the laws of the colony under which they were, and the provisions of those laws were observed. The hon. member would be well advised to withdraw the motion.

said it was distinctly understood that if the conditions of the Colony improved the 5 per cent. deductions were to be returned. The other colonies put their Civil Servants in the position they ought to have been before they entered Union. When the Cape handed over £170,000 to the Union, he felt that the first act of the new Parliament would be to carry out the obligation which the Cape Parliament should have fulfilled. It only meant £140,000 to carry out what was a moral promise.

My hon. friend talks about a moral obligation and a promise. Where was the moral obligation, and who held out the promise? The deductions took place by Act of Parliament, which you will have to repeal in order to restore the deductions, and there was no shadow of a promise. These statements do well enough on an election platform, but here they are no use whatever. (Ministerial cheers.)

Perhaps the hon. gentleman will take his mind back to the last day of the last session of the Cape Parliament. He will remember my getting up—not in this place, hut in another place —and pointing out our gratification at the possibility at that time of balancing our revenue and expenditure. We were delighted later on to find that it was not a question of balancing, but through the economical management of my right hon. friend there was what we considered a large surplus for the Cape Colony. But when it was a question of balancing I asked the right hon. gentleman, practically in the words of the motion, that should there be any more money be would take into consideration the 5 per cent, deducted from the salaries of the Civil Servants of the Cape, at a time when we could not afford to pay them their full salaries, and certainly they had the promise that when we could we would pay them. That was the moral obligation. The promise came from the right hon. member for Victoria West, who certainly said he would take into consideration the request made at that time. I do not complain of the attitude of the hon. member for Barberton. He is Minister of Finance for the Union, and he says he is not justified in paying out money from the Union to one Province more than another. I only wish that instead of yielding to the temptation for further praise for economic government, this obligation had been considered, and that before—

There was no obligation.

And that before the moneys of the Cape were handed into the Union Exchequer, they should have been used to carry out what we considered an obligation to the Cape Civil Servants. I hope the Minister of Finance will not take a severe view of this. After all, all that the motion says is: “Will the Government take into consideration?” If the Government will only do so, I feel sure the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) will approach the Government and use his utmost influence to get the Government to carry out as a favour only that obligation which we on this side of the House consider we owe to the Cape Civil Servants, and that promise of consideration which he evidently forgot to give attention to. (Opposition cheers.)

said that some of the members of the Cape Civil Service lost more than 5 per cent., but the motion did not propose that they should receive any reimbursement. As to the promise supposed to have been made by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), he (Mr. Fremantle) did not think that any such promise was made. Injustice, however, had been done by giving back to those who had lost little, and giving nothing to those who had lost much. Harm was done the Civil Service by speeches such as had been made that afternoon on its behalf, and if that sort of thing went on the Civil Service would be prejudiced, and a feeling against them would be engendered.

said it had been suggested that the Civil Servants were like the horse-leech’s daughter, but as a matter of fact they were only asking for the return of their own. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. member then quoted from “Hansard” to show what had transpired when the question was discussed by the Cape Parliament.

said he wished to ask the Minister of Finance exactly what his attitude was. He began by saying that he was going to accept his motion. He said he saw no harm in it, but then he heard same encouraging “Hear, hears,” from his (the Minister’s) side of the House, and began to have a doubt in his mind. He then indicated to him (the speaker) that he would advise him to withdraw his motion, and then he ended up by saying that he refused to accept it. What harm there could be in his motion he did not know. He was simply there voicing the opinion of 3,422 persons, who had petitioned the House; he did not bring forward his motion in order to carry favour with his constituents, as sugested by the hon. member for Uitenhage. The petition was signed by Civil Servants throughout the length and breadth of the Gape Province, and if time had allowed, every Civil Servant in the Province who was affected would have signed it. He hoped that the Minister of Finance would accept the motion.

put the motion, and declared it negatived.

called for a division, but afterwards withdrew it.

moved that the railway freight on Transvaal coal be so reduced as to enable mines to supply markets along the coast and elsewhere. His object, he said, was to reduce the tariff to such an extent as to render competition with foreign collieries possible. At present the Transvaal mines could not compete, as far as other parts of the Union were concerned. The coal-owners were not clamouring for new railway lines. All they asked for was an equitable adjustment of rates. At present hundreds of trucks went back to Delagoa Bay empty. Surely it would pay the Government to make those trucks carry coal, though it might be at a, low rate. All along the Eastern line in the Transvaal coal mines existed, but the owners complained bitterly of their inability to avail themselves of railway communication, owing to high tariffs. The coal industry was second in importance in the Transvaal, and it was the duty of Parliament to foster it. He trusted that the Government would favourably consider the matter.

seconded. He drew attention to the fact that the Transvaal contained large coal measures that were unworkable at present, on account of the high railway rates. The Witbank-Delagoa rate was 6s. 1d. per ton, which made competition in foreign markets impossible for Transvaal coal-owners. Yet the Transvaal could produce coal enough not merely for all requirements of South Africa, but for a large export as well. All hon. members would therefore see that something should be done to encourage the development of this industry.

said that the railway rate on Transvaal coal was as low as possible, even now. Thanks to that, Transvaal coal-owners were able to compete everywhere within the Union. He was considering specially low rates for bunker coal. He thought it would be found possible to supply steamers with South African coal, if only local merchants would confine their attention to what happened within the Union, instead of studying so closely what happened elsewhere. In the Cape, South African coal was used almost exclusively for domestic purposes. The motion was not so simple as it appeared. If it were agreed to the Railway Board would have to reduce the rate from the Transvaal to Durban, and this reduction might cause them to raise the mealie rate, so as to avoid a loss on that section of the railway system. The Board were at present considering a revision of the whole of the tariff. He would therefore urge the mover not to press the matter. It was a dangerous matter to come to Parliament asking for a reduction of railway rates, for if one member asked for one thing, some other member would be sure to ask for something else, and though he admitted that it was desirable to carry coal at as low a rate as possible, it should not be forgotten that the present rate was very low indeed.

pointed out that the motion, as he understood it, bad for its object not so much the Cheapening of bunker coal as the transport at a low rate, of coal, to be used in connection with agriculture. The rate on bunker coal was low enough as it was. A large quantity of coal was consumed nowadays for agricultural machinery. Owing to the high price of coal, however, the use of such machinery was discouraged, and the development of agriculture in the Cape suffered accordingly. He cordially supported the motion. The matter thoroughly deserved being brought to the Minister’s attention. South Africa, as a whole, possessed an enormous asset in the shape of its coa1, but the Gape was short of this article, and this should be an inducement to the Board to reduce the rate.

said he hoped that his hon. friend would see his way clear to make some alteration on the lines suggested. He would say that he thought the hon. the mover would have done better if he dealt with the coal mines in the whole of the Union, instead of only with the coal mines of the Transvaal. He did not agree with his hon. friend that the coal rates were very cheap. He thought that one of the first things the Railway Board should have done was to have tried to make some alteration in the rates in regard to coal. He thought it would be recognised that they could not get proper development of industries in the country unless they had the power to work those industries. He went on to refer to the fact that many farmers were desirous of taking up steam cultivation; but this had been found impossible, owing to the heavy rates for the carriage of coal. They had several rates in operation at the present time. There was one rate for the Cape Province, and there were others in the other Provinces, and if his hon. friend for Willowmore desired to get coal from another part into the Cape Province he was subjected to three different ratings. He went on to refer to the carriage of coal from Natal, saying that there was one rate over the berg, one over the C.S.A.R., and another rate when it came to the Cape Province. Hon. members might be surprised to know that coal which cost at Dundee 9s. a ton to the private consumer, when it got as far as Britstown cost £2 a ton, and then on top of that, transport cost had to be added. He knew his hon. friend the Minister for Railways had gone into the question, and he hoped that he would bring the matter before the Railway Board. He hoped that the Board would recognise that neither the industrial or the agricultural development of the country could proceed without a cheap and a good supply of fuel. He knew that the matter could be approached on business principles, for by reducing the rates and encouraging industries they would secure traffic over the lines that, under ordinary circumstances, it would never be possible to get.

said he regretted that his hon. friend opposite (Dr. Smartt) did not adopt the attitude he now took up when he was able to exercise some influence.

It’s a farthing rate to Molteno.

We are coming to that. In his (the speaker’s) humble constituency there were some coal mines yielding not a very high class of coal, and still a class of coal good for household purposes. They were unable to send their coal to East London then because of his hon. friend’s rates on the railways, and those rates still ran. (Laughter.) And then the opportunity for complying with the request was better then than it was at the present time. In those days there were any amount of trucks lying idle. He could have done something, and he did nothing.

What was the rate?

Thats not the—

What was the rate?

A farthing per ton per mile. In conclusion, he said that in those days there was a better opportunity for such ta change, and though his hon. friend had not done anything, he welcomed the present attitude of his hon. friend, and hoped that it would be maintained should he get into power again.

said he hoped, seeing the discussion that had taken place, that his hon. friend who had moved would alter it so that the matter might be considered by the Railway Board. For the House to give instructions would mean that it would take over the executive power in the matter.

suggested that as the matter had been thoroughly discussed, the motion should be allowed to drop. At the same time he would like to say that these business principles were going to the wind very fast. If these tariffs were to be adopted it would leave the Treasurer very little when he was in need of money. He would not have been surprised if other articles had been added to the list. If the example was once set by passing a resolution, practically instructing what should be done, then he thought they were embarking upon a policy that the House would regret in the future. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw the motion, as he could assure him that the matter would receive attention.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved that the correspondence and papers relating to the ocean mail contract be laid upon the table. The mover said he did not think he need offer any excuse for asking for the information. It was a question that interested the people of the country, and especially those connected with commercial matters. He might say at once that he had not brought forward the motion with any idea of embarrassing hon. gentlemen who sat opposite in their dealings in this matter, but what he asked them to do was to give the House such information as they could without prejudicing their position. It might be to strengthen their hands because they all knew that the other parties to the bargain were keen business people, and although they recognised the services which they had rendered to South Africa, at the same time it must be recognised that it was an important matter, and that those in the House might be able to strengthen the hands of the Government. Proceeding, the hon. member quoted replies that had been made on the subject last session in the Transvaal House of Assembly, and said it seemed to him that the Government were well advised in putting off the matter until the Union Government was in a position to deal with it. But as the last contract expired in September last it was evident they had now less than two years to run before the present arrangement was past and, therefore, it was necessary now to provide for a future arrangement. Well, he thought there was no doubt that there was a general feeling that the service should if possible be accelerated. That feeling was not confined to this country. The question was fully debated at the Imperial Conference held in England in 1907, at which General Botha and Dr. Jameson were present and, he believed, a resolution was proposed by (Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and supported by the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand, that in the opinion of the Conference the interests of the Empire demanded the best and quickest means of inter-communication between the different portions of the Empire. He did not think it was necessary to argue the point that closer communication between the different portions of the Empire, and more especially between the colonies and the Mother Country was desirable. They had seen more lately that the Governments of New Zealand and Canada had taken this matter up, and only lately the subject had been given a considerable prominence. If they looked back to what had happened as regarded their own service they must admit that very little improvement had taken place. Twelve years ago boats that left Cape Town on the same day as now arrived in England a day earlier. Afterwards, the two competing companies were amalgamated. The Government of the Cape Colony did not take the steps which they undoubtedly should have taken in making their contracts to prevent that amalgamation. However that might be, the amalgamation took place, and as the immediate result the service was lengthened, so that after 12 years of so-called progress they now made the journey a day longer, and the public had to pay more for the privilege. There was no doubt something might be done at present, without great injustice to the shipping companies. Coal was cheaper than it used to be, and, what was more important, the payment which shipping companies got for conveying coal produced in this country had increased enormously. The payment made by the Transvaal coal companies alone was something like £80,000 a year. He thought that what they wanted was not in any way to deal unfairly with the present shipping companies, who had undoubtedly rendered considerable service to the country, but, as was pointed out in the discussion in the Transvaal Parliament, it was certainly not desirable to sacrifice everything to an accelerated service. What he thought should be done was: the Government should investigate the matter very carefully, and see if the shipping companies could make better terms. There was no getting away from the fact that the shipping companies had done very well for themselves and, although, as he had said, they did not want to take any unfair advantage of them, they should, as od business men, make the best of the position, and it behoved the Government to be on their guard. He hoped the Government would look into it, and sun posed the matter would not now come before the Minister of Finance, but would be dealt with by the Minister for Public Works, unless it would be the Minister of Commerce. (Laughter.) He asked the Government to give the information asked for.

seconded.

wished to say that he quite appreciated the spirit which animated the hon. member (Mr. Chaplin) in putting the motion, for he told them it was more for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the Government in this matter than anything else, and he must say he agreed with a great deal of what he had said. Anyone in the House would know it was a difficult question. The hon. gentleman asked that certain information be given. Well, he might say that in October, 1900, a contract was entered into with the ocean mail contract people, which expired in September, 1910. The subsidy which was paid under that contract was £135,000 per annum. In 1908 tenders were called for a new contract, returnable in London on October 13, 1908. No tenders were received in response to the advertisements, save and except one from the present carriers of their mails, and that particular tender did not comply with the conditions which the Governments of South Africa required. Negotiations were entered into, and he was sorry to say that up to now they had been unsuccessful, in so far as entering into a new contract was concerned. As a tentative measure, an agreement had been come to by which the contract was extended for two years, with the option of cancellation by either party giving twelve months’ notice. A further bonus had to be paid by the Government of £15,000 a year. He might say that negotiations were still pending. Correspondence of an important and confidential nature had transpired between the Governments of South Africa and the steamship company. In this correspondence were also confidential instructions to the Agents-General in London and their replies. The Imperial Post Office was interested in the matter, inasmuch as they contributed a considerable amount of the subsidy, and, therefore, had to be consulted. He did not think that it would be in the interest of the company or the Government to lay the papers on the table at the present time. The Government was quite alive to the points Mr. Chaplin had raised, in so far as being on their guard and to get an accelerated service was concerned. So if the papers were laid on the table, he did not think it would be in the interests of the Government, nor would it help the negotiations, and he did not think the Imperial Post Office would approve if they disclosed the negotiations which had taken place and were still going on. He hoped Mr. Chaplin would see that the best interests would be served by not laying the papers on the table. He felt that if Mr. Chaplin saw the correspondence, he would decide that it was not in the public interest that they should be laid on the table.

said that perhaps the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would inform the House of the character of the negotiations which had taken place, because if he read the papers he would find a very important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, who said that the question was one in which the Imperial Government could assist the colonies. They could approach the companies with a view to meeting the desires of the colonies. Then they were given to understand that in so far as the desire of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to increase the speed of ocean carrying was concerned, the Imperial Government were prepared to consider the proposal. The impression left on their minds was that there was a desire on the part of the Imperial Government to assist in that matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer even went further, and said it was not only a matter of mail carrying alone, it was a matter of cheapening the carriage of goods in the Empire. There might be an objection on the part of the Government to lay the papers on the table; but he wanted them to feel that they had the support of the Whole House in the matter. Ten years ago ships were running at a greater pace between here and Southampton than they were now. The Union was in an entirely different position than the colonies were. The whole freight of the Union, so far as Government supplies were concerned, could be used as a great lever. Then there were the gold transport, the supplies for the harbours of the Union, and of those Municipalities which received financial support from the Union. These could be used as a lever for the purpose of securing a faster service. The Treasurer had in his hands a tremendous lever—not to penalise the company which in the past had rendered good service—but it was about time that they should do all they possibly could to get a faster service. He hoped the Minister of Finance would see that, as he was giving the company what was practically a monopoly—the carriage of the mails—the people would be protected, and that iniquitous system of rebates, which had kept down competition, would be done away with. (Cheers.)

said Government had been in communication with the Imperial Post Office on the matter, and so far they were quite in accord. He quite appreciated the various advantages that ought to be derived from a new contract; but it was surprising when one was about to make an agreement, to see how many of these advantages vanished. He also acknowledged the great services the mail company had rendered to this country; but it was impossible to make an agreement unless the company consented to it. There were methods which could be employed, which he would rather not speak of to-day: but hon. members could rest assured that everything that could be done would be done. He hoped that the agreement would be such that the House could approve of it.

You won’t do anything definite until you submit the agreement to the House?.

I don’t intend to submit the proposals to the House for ratification. The Cape Government hitherto has always entered info the agreement.

Subject to ratification by the House.

thought they were getting on to rather dangerous ground. It would be a mistake on the part of the House now to lay down a definite rule that Government should negotiate, subject to ratification by Parliament. He would like to see the approval of the House obtained before Government affixed its signature to the agreement, but he would not give any undertaking that Government would submit the contract to the House for ratification.

That is a new doctrine. (Hear, hear.) Every agreement of this kind must be ratified by Parliament.

By leave of the House, Mr. CHAPLIN then withdrew his motion.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider, the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed during the ten months ending March 31, 1911.

seconded.

said that when he put the motion on the paper he understood that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) was opposed to it, but after that gentleman’s speech of yesterday he (Mr. Walton) understood that that was not the case. Between the two proposals there were only differences of detail. He proposed two committees—Mr. Hull proposed one. The other point was with regard to the amount of work the committee should do each year. If the committee found it could go through the whole of the Estimates in one year, why not let it? (Hear, hear.) Why not let the Estimates be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts?

I will move an amendment. Proceeding, he said it was quite clear that they were in no disagreement on principle. He had it in his mind to move for a Public Accounts Committee to which also could be referred the question of the Estimates. There was one very important point upon which he could not agree with his hon. friend, and that was that the Estimates for the present period for 10 months should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. That part of the motion he could not accept, and would move an amendment to omit all the words after “that,” for the purpose of inserting the following: “ It is desirable that the Public Accounts Committee should consider such part of the Estimates of Expenditure for the ensuing financial year as the committee may determine.” That, he thought, would meet the two paints raised by his hon. friend. It would be seen that the material difference between his amendment and his hon. friend’s motion was in respect to the Estimates for the current period of ten months, and when his hon. friend reflected he would see that no good purpose would be served by referring these particular Estimates to any Accounts Committee, because, if he would recollect, the estimate of expenditure from May 31 last to March 31 next represented expenditure, the bulk of which had already been expended. It represented expenditure that would have been incurred by the time the Estimates had been passed, and what good purpose could be served by referring Estimates of Expenditure, of which seven-tenths or even more had been expended, to the Accounts Committee? Practically speaking, the whole of the Estimates which were laid on the table the other day represented commitments entered into by Government, and therefore he said he could not see what good purpose could be served by referring them to a committee. Another thing was that these Estimates were not prepared, as Estimates usually were, with something to go upon. The Government had to start on May 31 with entirely a new state of affairs. They had to amalgamate the four Estimates of Expenditure into one, and he had no doubt that if they were gone through some of them would show too large an establishment, but they could not help it. They had no time to cut down everything to the bone, as his hon. friend would say, but they hoped that gradually all the surplus Civil Servants would be absorbed in consequence of the development of the country, and they considered it would be a wrong policy to get rid of those Civil Servants. That was another reason why no good purpose could be effected by referring the Estimates for the present ten months, of which on y three months were yet to run, to the committee. There was another reason, and that was in reference to the rising of the House about the middle of next month He doubted very much whether before the middle of December these Estimates would have received the sanction of the House. If they had not been passed, then it meant that he would have to ask the House to pass a Partial Appropriation Bill to carry on until the end of the financial year, and the power conferred upon the Government under the South Africa Act would be renewed for a further period. For these reasons he moved his amendment.

seconded.

said that he regretted that his hon. friend had adopted that course. It was quite true that so far as the Estimates for the present ten months were concerned, they represented moneys which had already to a great extent been expended, but the House must remember that the Estimates for the current year formed a basis—

They don’t.

said that they did form a basis of expenditure, and if the House passed these Estimates and subsequently passed an Appropriation Bill, then the salaries of Civil Servants became fixed salaries. There was no doubt about that. He did not know who had been giving his hon. friend his legal opinion—

Who has been giving you yours?

said that legal authorities had established it beyond question that as soon as a man’s salary was fixed by Act of Parliament they could not reduce his salary except under certain conditions laid down in the Civil Service Act. He wished to warn his hon. friend against falling into that trap. He considered it would be an advantage to have these Estimates carefully examined before they were included in an Appropriation Bill. Let them delay and go slowly.

said that he seconded the motion of the Minister of Finance, although personally he should have been very glad had the present Estimates been referred to a Budget Committee. To that the Government were strongly opposed, and he must say that there was some reason in what they said on account of the lapse of time that had taken place, and if they were to examine these things they would then have the work of the Budget Committee overlapping, and they would be examining two sets of Estimates. There was that to be said for the Government. He was one of those people who always liked to meet a person half way, and his friend (Mr. Walton) must see that the Government had given them practically what they had asked for, that was, that the ensuing Estimates would be referred to a Select Committee. He thought his hon. friend might be very well satisfied with having carried the Government with him to a very great extent. He was sorry that they could not go a little further, but there were objections and difficulties and he thought his hon. friend (Mr. Walton) might very well accept the Minister of Finance’s proposal, and be thankful that they bad got so much. (Laughter.)

said that there were a good many things in the Estimates which would require to be inquired into. For instance, there was the question of incidental expenses. There was not a single vote in which there were not incidental expenses, and how was the Auditor-General going to keep a check on expenditure when items were put down under incidental expenses? Take the question of magistrates also. They were all down in one lump sum in the schedule, and there was nothing to show how the money was going to be spent. One hundred and eighty-eight magistrates were down for £104,000 expenditure, but there was nothing in the schedule to show exactly how that money was going to be spent. The consequence was that the Auditor-General could not keep any proper control over expenditure, and that was characteristic of the whole of the Estimates. All these things might be inquired into, and put into better shape by the Public Accounts Committee. There was another argument in favour of referring the Estimates to the Public Accounts Committee, and that was that the Government would get them passed through the House much more quickly than otherwise. There were scores of things upon which hon. members would want information. If they got that information upstairs they would have to ask for it in the House, and that would lead to endless discussion. In the interests really of economy of time the Estimates should be referred to this committee. By the Budget Committee going carefully into the Estimates, several matters would be dealt with on a better basis.

said he thought a point had been overlooked, and that was that dealing with the first Estimates they were dealing with past expenditure. The whole position from a legal point of view was anomalous. The Government had been acting under the South Africa. Act, which empowered them to spend money as they deemed fit, and they had been doing so. Most of this money when the Budget was through Parliament would have been spent, and, therefore, it did seem rather a waste of time to discuss with too great minute detail these Estimates. The money had been spent under legal authority, and that was the reason why his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) proposed that the Estimates for the ensuing financial year should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and not the Estimates for the period from the 31st of May to the 31st of March. As regards the Estimates now before the House, it must be plain to the hon. member that it would serve no useful purpose Whatever to refer them to the committee proposed.

said it appeared that the Minister for Internal Affairs and the Minister for Finance were now taking up a different attitude from that adopted the other day. The Hon. the Minister for Finance now told the House that the Government had no time to make up proper Estimates, and the Estimates submitted were pro forma. Surely these Estimates for £13,000,000, which were made up in a hurry—

What does pro forma mean?

“In a hurry.” (Laughter.)

said that if those Estimates were pro forma; if sufficient care had not been taken over their preparation, then there was all the more reason for referring them to a committee. Considerable time would be saved if they were referred to a committee, because otherwise there was no doubt a great deal of time would be taken up in examining them in the House.

said the Government were obliged for the definition of pro forma given by the hon. member for Georgetown, and would remember it in future. The Estimates were not estimates framed in a hurry. They, were transition Estimates. There was no difference in the position taken up by the Government to-day and in that taken up yesterday. The contention of the hon. member who moved for their reference to a Select Committee was that they were Estimates which would form a basis for expenditure in the future. That was a wrong contention. In regard to the service at the present time, they were in a transition stage, and many alterations and new provisions would doubtless have to be made in the future. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth has alluded to the danger of fixing increases of salaries permanently. In the first place, there were very few individual cases in which increases of salaries had been given. The increases which had been given were almost all entirely due to what was called the scale increments. Increases giver otherwise than on that scale—and he thought they were less than half a dozen— were, of course, open to discussion in the House. The final Court of Appeal in such matters was always on the floor of the House. In conclusion, he said he hoped that the point would not be pressed.

was proceeding to put the amendment, when

said he had noticed that several increments had been made in the case of Cape Civil Servants. By whose authority had this been done?

was understood to say that these were scale increments.

By what law?

was understood to reply that the practice would have been followed in the Cape and Transvaal Legislatures had the Provinces been separated at the present time.

asked if there would be any schedules supplied with the Estimates, when these came before the House. Let him take the question of magistrates. No less than 188 magistrates were bulked together at a certain sum of money, and there was no possibility of knowing the salaries of these officials throughout the Union. In the Estimates of the late Cape House, all these magistrates’ salaries were set down specifically, so that there was an opportunity of comparison.

said that this point did not come within the subject matter of the motion.

said he thought that the subject matter of the debate was that the Estimates should be referred to a committee. He thought that an amendment had been moved to the effect that the present Estimates should not be referred to the committee. Under these circumstances, was he not in order in asking the Minister whether schedules would not be supplied, in order to give hon. members an opportunity of seeing how the Government had expended and proposed spending the money?

said that the hon. member was not in order, and added that the Minister of Finance would not be in order if he replied to such a question.

said he only wished to call attention to the amount of time that could be saved if these schedules were prepared. Now, the vote to Agricultural Societies was shown in one large sum. Hon. members who took an interest in these matters liked to know the societies to which this money had been devoted. Even hon. members of the other side of the House might desire to know how this money was to be expended. Thirteen millions was the amount of money involved, and he thought that the House should have better proof than the bare Estimates placed before Parliament. At one time his hon. friends, the Ministers for Railways and Native Affairs, used to be very strong on sending these accounts to the Budget Committee for close scrutiny, and it seemed curious that they had changed so suddenly in their new surroundings. (Laughter.)

said that the Controller and Auditor-General had no power to inquire into the accounts of the four Provinces up to May 31, 1910, and he pointed out that extraordinary warrants had been issued. That being the case, and if, in addition, they had no Estimates Committee, there would be no check on this expenditure. He pointed out very strongly and forcibly that all the accounts of the Province, both before and after the accomplishment of Union, should be subjected to the fullest scrutiny.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

moved that all correspondence on the subject of the admission into the Transvaal free of duty of sugar produced in the Province of Mozambique, as well as the letter addressed to the Prime Minister of the then Colony of Natal do the Prime Minister of the Transvaal, dated May 11, 1909, and the letter dated April 1, 1910, from the Prime Minister of Natal to the Prime Minister of the Transvaal, be laid upon the table.

seconded.

said that facility was given to a neighbouring State not forming part of the Union, which, by reason of certain compensations given, was now enjoying privileges which aided it in its development. These developments were fostered by the fact that the State referred to enjoyed privileges in the country to which it belonged, which enabled it to send a large portion of its product under enormous advantages to a market which was not open to the Union. He was, therefore, desirous of obtaining from the Prime Minister correspondence which had taken place—not only that which specifically referred to the matter in motion, but some other, which he understood had taken place in regard to the question itself, and particularly to a European Board established in the Brussels Convention, which had given a decision as to the amount of benefit in the establishment of bonuses enjoyed by the producers of sugar. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would have no objections to furnishing them with the fullest information on the subject, and allowing them to see all the correspondence which had taken place in regard to the question. It threatened to impose serious disadvantages on the Union, and particularly the sugar planters in Natal.

said there was not the least objection on the part of the Government to lay the correspondence on the table, but he might 6ay there was other correspondence in addition to that asked for, and that would also be laid on the table, so that hon. members would have the fullest opportunity of knowing what the position was. He understood Mr. Maydon to say that the Portuguese were enjoying privileges which they should not have.

replied that he said Portugal enjoyed privileges which were not open to sugar planters in the Union.

said that with regard to that he might say that the planters of Loureneo Marques were entitled by virtue of an agreement which had been in existence for 20 or 25 years to the mutual admission of sugar. That agreement was subsequently, after the Transvaal Republic was taken over by the British Empire, re-enacted by a modus vivendi entered into between the Transvaal and the Portuguese Government. Subsequently in April of 1909 that modus vivendi was superseded by another agreement, and that agreement was entered into with the full concurrence of all the other colonies in British South Africa, and by virtue of that agreement sugar grown in the Mozambique Colony was entitled to be admitted free of Customs duty into the Province of the Transvaal.

said there was only one point that arose, and that was that the Transvaal, which was in the Union now, was under treaty obligations to impose countervailing duties wherever bonuses were given on sugar, and he wanted to know whether those treaty obligations were to be put in force or not. If the case was as he thought, the Union, he believed, was bound by treaty to impose a countervailing duty, and it was on that point he hoped the correspondence would throw some light.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that in the opinion of this House the Circular No. 22, dated November 8, 1910, issued to School Boards in the Transvaal by the Director of Education in that Province is contrary to the provisions of the Education Act, 1907, and should be withdrawn.

seconded.

dared to say that the case was that a good many members of the House had not had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the terms of the notice mentioned in his motion. It might be thought that he drew attention to this matter to raise difficulties where no difficulties existed. A circular had been issued by the Transvaal Director of Education to the secretaries of School Boards stating that it had been decided that all communications dealing with the acquisition of sites, erection of schools, etc., must be addressed to the office to the secretary to the Administrator, and all other communications should be addressed to the secretary of the Education Branch of the Administrator’s office. Although no harm might be intended by this, it did render possible a change in the administrative system, because it appeared that the office of the Transvaal Administrator was taking to itself power to deal with matters which were more properly within the functions of the Education Department. This was an argument that Government should see that the Executive Committees should be appointed as soon as possible for the four Provinces. It appeared to him that the circular was an infringement of the Act, and they on that side of the House would like to have some information on the point. (Hear, hear.)

said it seemed to him that it would be advisable for the House to come to some understanding as to how far the functions of that House extended with regard to the Province administrations. The matter was a Provincial one purely and simply—it dealt with lower education, and had absolutely nothing to do with higher education. Clause 81 of the South Africa Act distinctly transferred the administration of lower education to the Provincial Councils. For the mere matter of convenience it seemed to him that it would be advisable if the House came to some clear understanding as to what should be dealt with by the Provincial Councils, and what should be dealt with by the Union Parliament. He said the circular referred to the Transvaal, and was a purely provincial matter, and it would not be convenient to the House and Parliament to be continually interfering in matters of detail in provincial administration. He read a telegram which he had received from the Administrator of the Transvaal. The latter stated that in his opinion there was nothing in the circular which was contrary to the provisions of the Education Act, 1907; furthermore, that the matter was purely a provincial one, and that the circular was issued for better and more economic working, and to prevent unnecessary duplication of work. Mr. Malan also read a report which he had received from the Transvaal Director of Education, stating that he did not see how the circular was contrary to any provision contained in the Act, and expressing himself as at a loss to understand why the question had been raised in Parliament. In view of the fact that both the Administrator of the Transvaal and the Transvaal Director of Education were of opinion, after careful consideration, that the circular was not contrary to law, but simply for the convenience of the Education Department, he (the speaker) hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion.

said he was opposed to the amendment being withdrawn, as he took a very serious view of the matter. He granted what the Minister of Education had said about the power of the Administrator. Of course, he had power to administer the law but he had no power to alter the law. According to a section of the South Africa Act, all laws existing at the establishment of Union must remain in force until altered by the proper authority. They on his side of the House maintained that this law had never been so altered. He wished to know why the Administrator had not called the Provincial Council together. It could have dealt with the matter. It was the proper authority, and not the Administrator himself. He (the speaker) had not the slightest doubt that the circular was contrary to the law.

Test it in the Court then.

said he would like to take this matter up very strongly. As far as he was concerned he did not consider the question as one of convenience, and he wished to know if the Government was going to tolerate a breach of the law, The circular took out of the hands of the Education Department matters relating to school sites, buildings, and furniture. The Director of Education would have nothing to say with regard to the erection of buildings, which would be taken out of his hands and put under the local Public Works Department. That was a breach of the law, under which everything, whether it pertained to curriculum of whether it had to do with buildings or furniture, must go through the Department of Education. He (Mr. Jagger) did not dispute that it might be a matter of convenience to do that, but he thought the Administrator should have waited till his Provincial Council had met, and passed an amendment to the law to that effect. The law had also been broken with regard to officials in the Transvaal. The Auditor-General of the Transvaal reported—

asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point whether the motion was in order, seeing that primary and secondary education has been delegated to the Provincial Councils of the Provinces, under section 85 of the South Africa Act?

stated that in his opinion the raising of discussions in this House on matters specially delegated to the Provincial Councils of the Provinces is highly inconvenient, but he was not ore-paired at this juncture, and without further consideration, to rule that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Germiston was out of order.

asked if rulings of the Speaker, delivered in English, could also be given in Dutch, for the benefit of the Dutch-speaking members, who might not be able to accurately follow the ruling as given in the first language?

said that his ruling was that the motion was not out of order.

said he would merely add that in cases where the law was broken, he thought the House should point the matter out to the Administrator of the Province concerned.

said that if the hon. member who had introduced the motion would move that the education clause in the Act of Union should be taken out of the hands of the Provincial (Councils, then they would all know where they were, and those who had in the Convention voted against education being in the hands of the Union Parliament would have to fight the matter over again. The question was one which had been reserved for the Provinces, and it was a subject with which they alone dealt legislatively, and he thought it was exceedingly unfair that the House should be asked to sit in judgment upon the act of an executive officer in the execution of a law resting with the Provinces. The law With regard to primary education was left to the Provinces, and they could alter it to their hearts’ content at any moment. If today the House went and said that the Administartor acted in conflict with that law, then to-morrow they would have to say the Provincial Council has passed a law in conflict with the law. What right had they got to do that? They had as much right as if the House were to say that an officer of a Municipal Council had acted in contravention of the bye-law of a municipality, and of course they had no such right. If the House adopted a resolution of that kind, then he would ask hon. members opposite boldly to rise and say that education should be taken out of the hands of the Provinces, but knowing what took place in the Convention and knowing what was on still, he would be the last to support that.

said that the explanation that had been given seemed to him rather beside the mark. If there had been a breach of the law, who had they to go by except the Government of the country, of which the Administrator —if he had been guilty of a breach—was an officer? The Minister of Education, who was followed by the Minister of Justice, went back on that, and said that this House had nothing to do with it, because it was a matter within the province of the Provincial Council. The Provincial Council not having been assembled, and the Executive of the Provincial Council not having been elected, it did seem to him that the Administrator, who was provision ally administering the Province, should not alter anything until he had called together his Council—(cheers)—land the position being that there was no Executive and no Provincial Council, the right person to take up any breach of the law by one of the Administrators would, be the Hon. the Minister for Justice, and if he did not take it up, then it seemed to him that the only thing to be done was to come to that House and bring up the matter. (Hear, hear.)

said that surely his right hon. friend was wrong. If there was a breach of the law, should they not go to the Courts? (Laughter.) Why, a breach took place the other day, and in that instance an appeal was made to the Supreme Court. (Laughter.) But apart from that, he had risen to point out bow extremely inconvenient it was for hon. members who did not know what the circular was or what it contained to say that such a thing was illegal. How could they possibly decide such a question? So far as he was concerned, he had not seen, let alone heard, of such a circular as the one mentioned in the motion. Again, be thought it was about time that the minutes of the National Convention were published. Every day some hon. member got up and said that this or that happened in the Convention, or made a reference to the minutes of the Convention. There was no reason for keeping the minutes secret any longer and the sooner they were published the better.

said that if there had been a breach of the law—and this he denied—then it was only a breach of the tew in the technical sense of the term. And if there had been a breach of the law, then it had been for the purpose of avoiding circumlocution and facilitating business. (Laughter.) He contended that much time was saved; and as the Administrator had change of education in the Province, he thought that official wise in taking the step he did in the circular.

said that surely they required some explanation after what had been said by the Minister for Education, the Minister of Justice, and the hon. member for Potohefstroom. The last-named gentleman, had stated that this had been the practice of School Boards in that Province for a long time. If the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Neser) had listened to the Minister for Education, he would have learned that this departure from the law was due to the minute discussion between the Administrator and the Director of Education.

again read the telegram, and stated that there had been no breach of the law. In fact, this very practice had been carried on in the Cape Province for as long a time. (Opposition cries of “No, no.”)

said that if his hon. friend had been going in that direction for three years, all he could say was that the Government of the Transvaal was carried on in a most extraordinary manner to allow it to take place without calling the attention of the School Board to it. The Government had been most remiss in its duty in not calling together the Provincial Councils when the Union Parliament met, in order that they might elect, by the system of proportional representation, their Executive Councils, and in order that the administration of the Provinces might be carried on in accordance with the wishes of the National Convention and the provisions of the Act of Union. He hoped that his right hon. friend would give an assurance to the House that the Provincial Councils would be called together without delay. The right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merrimam) said that if this was a breach of the law, the proper thing to do was to go into a court of justice. He (Dr. Smartt) used to listen to his right hon. friend when he thundered in another House that it was the High Court of Parliament, and was the proper body to redress all grievances. Well, they had listened to the Minister for Education and the Minister for Justice, and the latter had referred to the fact as to whether this was a breach of the law or not, He should tell them whether it was or not a breach of the law. Even if it was only a technical breach of the law, the attention of the House should be called to it, for if attention was not drawn to technical breaches of the law, they would soon have serious breaches of the law before the Provincial Councils were called together. He did not wish to interfere with the province of the Provincial Councils, because when that question came up to be discussed, hon. members sitting on the Treasury benches would find that be held much stronger views than even they did on the rights and privileges of the Provincial Councils. Whatever it might be, it was the duty of the Government to bring to the notice of the House and breach of law affecting any Province before the Provincial Councils were called together. Has hon. friend bad forgotten that the Provincial Councils could make Ordinances, but they did not become law until approved of by the Governor-General. He did think that, as his hon. friend had brought this to the notice of the House, that at the eleventh hour it was the duty of the Government to see that all irregularities were rectified. Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. gentleman that the Provincial Councils should be called together at the earliest possible date, for the purpose of allowing them to elect their executives.

said he could not follow the hon. member for Fort Beaufort et all. Evidently the hon. member would like to see the Union Parliament usurping all the real powers and functions of the Provincial Councils. He wished it to be clearly understood that nothing now prevented Administrators from convening the Councils. It was superfluous for the Union Government to issue instructions on this point, as would appear from clause 74 of the South Africa-Act. He much regretted the motion, because it censured a Transvaal official. His action was called a contravention of the law, but that law, according to the South Africa Act, was to be administered by the Provincial Council. If the motion were adopted, the House would practically be altering the Constitution. He wished to warn them most emphatically that relations between the Union and Provincial authorities would become strained if every provincial matter were to be discussed in the House. Parliament should adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards the Provinces, so that there might be real co-operation. The motion was not nearly so simple as it looked. It was really ultra-constitutional, and he had to oppose it, because, if it passed, members of the Convention might be accused of having deliberately misled South Africa. He would never be a party to such a proceeding. He quite agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that there was no good reason now why the minutes of the Convention should not be published. He did not see why one or two members of the Convention should have a monopoly by having it left to them to state what was or was not the Convention’s intention on certain points. (Hear, hear.)

said that as to the object of the motion, it was not its intention to start a feeling of antagonism between the House and the Provincial Councils. The position was, that they Pound a condition of affairs in the Province of the Transvaal, where no Provincial Council had been summoned and when no executive had been elected, but where the functions of the executive were in accordance with the South Africa Act, temporarily entrusted to the Administrator. They agreed with the views put forward by the Minister for Justice. They did not want to interfere with the Administrator while he was carrying on those multifarious functions so long as he carried them on inside the law. (Hear, hear.) Their complaint was that, in issuing this circular, it war a breach of the law—(hear, hear)—and whether it was a technical breach or a serious breach did not affect the argument in the House. The opinion of the Administrator had been quoted; but he did not think that the House had anything to do with his opinion at all. They agreed with the Minister of Education when he said that they must not interfere with the Provincial Councils; but surely it was within the duty of that House to say to the Government: “Here is an officer under your control, acting contrary to the law, and it, is your duty to stop him.” (Opposition cheers.) The hon. member for Germiston could hardly be expected to take the matter to the Law Courts when he had that Parliament—the Supreme Court of Justice—at his hands. (Hear, (hear.)

said the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was enjoying himself very much; but he rushed in and discussed a legal question he did not understand. Anything more preposterous, he (Mr. Sauer) had never heard, and he hoped the House would not pass such a resolution. The House was asked to give a legal opinion on a certain circular they had not before them.

We have it—why have you not? (Opposition cheers.)

said they were asked to express a legal opinion on a question of which they had not the facts If the House were going to express legal opinions, it would very soon fall into disrepute. He would like to draw attention to this point —that, seemed to him to be the second attempt made to interfere, with the rights of Provincial Councils. Was the Administrator not mainly a Provincial Council officer?

He is your officer.

He is responsible mainly to the Provincial Council, and here you are going to interfere with the rights of the Provinces. Proceeding, the hon. member said that, as had been remarked that afternoon, there was a danger in this matter of education of setting a flame alight, the full extent of which they did not know. They should maintain intact the privileges and rights given to the Provincial Councils, but now they were attacking them.

No.

Well, you dissemble your attack very well. The spirit is one of finding fault with the Administrator. In conclusion, the hon. member expressed the hope that the House would refrain from expressing a legal opinion: The House was wasting time in discussing a legal point, and he hoped that it would hesitate before passing such a motion. (Hear, hear. )

moved the adjournment of the debate until the following day.

seconded.

The motion for the adjournment was agreed to.

presented a petition from M. Rosario, ex-blacksmith striker, Table Bay Harbour Board, who served with broken periods from 1887 to 1907 and was retired with a gratuity, praying for further consideration of his case, or for other relief.

Proclamations, Department of Agriculture, Cape Colony, September 22, 1909, to May 39, 1910; principal Government Notices, Department of Agriculture, Cape Colony, for the same period; report of the Department of Agriculture, Cape Colony, for the year 1909 (G. 10 and 10a.—’10); Proclamation No. 49 of 1910, Department of Agriculture, Natal; Government Notices, Department of Agriculture, Natal, February 3, 191-0, to May 30, 1910; seventh report, Government Entomologist, Natal; Proclamations, Department of Agriculture since May 31, 1910; Government Notices, Department of Agriculture since May 31, 1910.

moved, as an unopposed motion, seconded by Mr. KRIGE: “That the Committee of the Whole House on the Naturalisation of Aliens’ Bill have leave to revert to clause four.”

Agreed to.

referring to the clause which had yesterday been allowed to stand over, said that that had been done in order to give him an opportunity of seeing whether it was possible to meet the amendment of the hon. and learned member for the Castle Division of Cape Town (Mr. Alexander) ti some way, by giving a certificate to minor children who became resident here with their parents—giving them some evidence that they were entitled to be considered British subjects in the Union. On consideration of that clause, it had not seemed possible to give such a certificate for the reason which he had already given the House; but it did seem possible to meet, the matter in another way, and that was the reason why he asked the House to revert to clause 4, and, to meet the wishes of the hon. member opposite. It was possible to insert in the naturalisation certificate of the father the names of his minor children who were and who were not resident in the Union, and once that was done, copies of the naturalisation papers of the father could always be obtained, from which it would appear who were the children who fell under the naturalisation and who did, not. All that would be required in the Bill would be an insertion of a new sub-section in clause 4, which would enable the Minister to get, evidence as to which of the minor children were resident in the Union at the time of the father’s application, for letters of naturalisation and who were not. An opening would be left to the Minister to prescribe by regulations what form it should be.

said that he was glad that the Minister of the Interior had seen fit to give that assurance, to meet the objection which had been made against the Bill on behalf of the minor children. That substantially met the objection which they (on the Opposition) had raised, because every child would now be able to prove in a very simple manner that he was entitled to be considered a British subject, if the Minister’s proposal was agreed to. The only evidence a child would now have to bring would he evidence of identification.

The hon. and learned member withdrew his amendment.

The committee reverted to clause 4.

moved the following new sub-section (d) in clause 4: “Furnish such evidence as the Minister may require as to the name, sex, age and place of birth of each of his minor children (if any), who, at the time of his application are (1) resident with him in the Union, and (2) not resident, in the Union.”

This was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered

and other hon. members objected.

said that he understood that the Opposition would not object.

said that there was no such obligation on me part of the Opposition.

said that the rule was that where amendments were made to a Bill in committee, these amendments had to be printed, so that they could be considered by the House. Of course, where there were trivial or merely verbal amendments, the practice was that no opposition was taken to the amendments being at once considered; but he saw that there were a considerable number of amendments to that Bill; and he would suggest that time should be taken for their consideration.

said that the most substantial amendment to the Bill had been printed on the paper for that day, and the other amendments had been merely verbal ones. Speaking for himself, he would be glad to get the Bill to its final stage that day, and he had no wish to oppose the Minister of the Interior as to the amendments being now considered.

moved that the amendments be considered on Friday.

seconded, This was agreed to.

said that although they had been twitted by the lawyers on the other side of the House, they (the lawyers on the Opposition) had not had anything to say in that debate, because they had felt some diffidence, having been accused on the day before of taking up too much time; and he really thought that it was incumbent upon them to combat some of the statements which had been made by some of the lawyers on the other side of the House. The hon. and learned member thought that the Minister of the Interior was almost as good a hand at drawing a red herring across the trail as their old friend the Minister for Harbours and Railways. (Laughter.) The previous day the Minister of Justice had dragged, in by the heels the question of the Control of primary education by the Provincial Councils, and he thought that none of them on that (the Opposition) side of the House would be in favour of taking primary education out of the hands of those Councils, as the Minister of Justice had accused them of the day before. All they on his side of the House said, was that if illegalities were being perpetrated by any officer of the Union of South Africa, there should be somebody who could call that officer to account, and he thought that Parliament had a perfect right to express the opinion that a certain officer had been breaking the law. They were referred by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) to the law courts, but it was a nice question as to who would have a Locus standi in the courts in Much a matter. There might be a decision by the Court that the action of the Administrator in this matter was unconstitutional and illegal, just as the Supreme Court of the Transvaal had decided that, the payment of £300 to the members of the late Transvaal Assembly was, but had hold that those who petitioned the Court had no locus standi. He thought they ought to say who had authority to deal with this matter. Under the Act of Union, the Administrator was an officer appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council, and was therefore under the control to some extent of the Ministry in power. Further than that he was only removable by the Governor-General-in-Council, and it was clear that so far from him being a provincial officer, as the Minister of Railways had said, he was an officer of Parliament, and they were entitled to bring to the notice of Parliament his actions. He did not know whether the Administrator had been instructed to postpone calling his Provincial Council together—

called Mr. Struben to order.

said that he wished to know whether they had any right to bring to the notice of the House any act, legal or otherwise, performed by the Administrator, and whether the Administrator was an official under the control of Parliament. Remembering what had happened in regard to the payment of the £300 to members of Parliament in the Transvaal, he would ask: Who would bring this matter before the Court? Would he be the Director of Education? Obviously not, because he gave it as his opinion that there was no illegality. Could one of the School Boards? He submitted a Board could not, because it would be held on a technicality that it was not prejudiced. Looking at the matter from a constitutional point of view, the only person that could raise the question was Parliament, and he submitted that they were quite in order in bringing the matter before the House in the way they had, and that they wore quite justified if an illegality had been committed, in pointing out that illegality am calling upon Government to do its duty by seeing that the law was carried out.

said that no good purpose could be served by continuing the debate, and accordingly moved that the question be now put.

seconded.

said he rose to express surprise at the statement which had been made by the Minister of Education on the previous day. As he had understood him, he said that a similar practice had been in vogue in the Cape Province for two or three years past. If he had understood him rightly, he meant to say that the question of school sites and buildings during the last two or three years had not in the first instance been referred to the Superintendent-General of Education, but had been referred to some other department, presumably the Public Works Department. He wished to give the Minister an opportunity of correcting what he had been reported to have said, but he was sure he would agree with him that if any School Board in the Cape Province were to send its application first to the Public Works Department that department would give it a rub over the knuckles, and refer it to the proper quarters.

said that there was a great difference between the Cape and Transvaal systems. In the Cape school buildings and sites were acquired by three trustees, whereas in the Transvaal there was a national Government system, and buildings were acquired by a Government department.

said there seemed to be a good deal of misunderstanding about the circular that had been issued.

On a point of order—is the hon. member in order to continue the debate?

Oh, yes. (Laughter.)

said there were two points that prompted him to rise on this question. The first was that when lawyers on that side of the House took part in a debate, they were twitted on the other side; and, in fact, one paper said they talked too much. For that reason they kept silent. (Laughter.) But it seemed that some of the hon. members were not satisfied that they should continue mute, and consequently he rose to make some remarks. He would like to point out that it was perfectly clear that that circular was in contravention of section 59 of the Education Ordinance of 1907. It said the Board shall advise the department on all matters connected with school accommodation in a district. The course that had been adopted had been a contravention of that section. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Neser) that there had only been a technical breach, but he thought the House and the country were indebted to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) for bringing it before the House. The point was, whether the House had, or had not, the jurisdiction to deal with matters such as contraventions of the law. It was said that they were endeavouring to tamper with the South Africa Act Section 85, sub-section 3, said that the Provincial Council “may,” not “shall,” deal with Education other than higher education for a period of five years. He submitted that it was in the province of this House, in ease an Administrator committed a breach of the law, to bring to the notice of the country the fact, because it was perfectly clearly provided that if he did so, it was the duty of the Governor-General-in-Council to take cognisance of it, and deal with him and if he had committed anything serious to dismiss him, and bring it to the notice of the House. He thought that in having the attention of the House drawn to the matter, the motion had achieved its purpose, and felt sure that no further breaches of the law would take place.

said that the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) asked them to affirm two propositions. One was that a certain Act of the Administrator of the Transvaal was contrary to the provisions of the law, and the other was that the Act should be withdrawn. He could not see any force whatever in the contentions of the hon. member, who said that no one would have any locus standi. It seemed to him that he absolutely condemned his own argument by the case cited by him. He cited a case from the Transvaal, where it was ruled that no advocate had any locus standi, but in that very case the Court laid down that the Act was illegal. That was all they required. All they required was some authority that would enable them to say that the circular shall be withdrawn. If it was illegal, he thought the House would see at once that no illegal act was committed by the Administrator. But they should not ask them to say that this, or that, or the other Act was in contravention of the law or not. The next point raised was that this circular should be withdrawn. It appeared to them that the whole effect of it was to say that a certain application should go to a different department than laid down. He wished to enter a most emphatic protest on the position taken up by the Minister of Education when he said that the Administrator for the Transvaal resented his act being questioned by the House. The powers of the Administrator had been laid down by the House, and they certainly had full right to criticise the acts of the various Administrators of the various Provinces, just as much as they had the right to question any arbitrary action of any servant of the Union. But it appeared to him that there was something behind the motion. He thought the right course the hon. member should have adopted would have been to put a motion on the paper calling attention to the delay in the bringing together of the Provincial Councils. There was a feeling that it had been unduly delayed. The South Africa Act said that the Executive Committees, on behalf of the Provincial Councils, should carry on the work, and further said that until they met its administration Khalil be carried on by Administrators. But it contemplated that the Provincial Councils would be called together at an early date, and that the government of the colony would not be carried on single-handed, and that was the point the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) might have nailed his motion to. But at present it seemed puerile to ask them to take up the motion.

said there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to whether this matter was one of injustice or not. He was quite prepared to follow the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who had had a great deal of experience on School Boards in this country, and who said it was important. Whether it was or was not it seemed there was no question that the motion had been made of great importance by the action taken by some of the members. They had been told it was not their business, and that they were interfering. He thought it would be disastrous for this country if at this early stage of the new Constitution, anything whatever was decided with regard to Provincial Councils to justify the belief that they had the exclusive right to deal with education or any other subject in the South Africa Act. They were told that the difference between the Canadian Constitution and this was that the Provinces in South Africa had no exclusive rights, and that was perfectly right. The Minister for Railways and Harbours said the other day that education had been specially reserved to Provincial Councils for a period of five years. Anyone looking at the South Africa Act would see it did not stay that. The Provincial Councils were entrusted with primary education, in the same way as they were entrusted with anything else. The only difference was that education was limited to five years. Now, why should that give them any exclusive right with regard to education, which they had not in regard to anything else? It was on the same footing as any other matter. If they had any special reservation or exclusive jurisdiction, then they had the same with any other matters which they had to deal with. He strongly protested against that idea that because the Provincial Councils were limited to a period of five years they were entirely out of sight of the jurisdiction of this House. He further thought it was incumbent on this House to be most careful as to how it took up this matter regarding the exclusive jurisdiction with regard to this matter of education or any other. Then they had been told that they could go to the Court, but he considered that the very instance that was quoted should hinder and deter them from going to the Court. As in that instance no remedy was obtained, so the result would be in this case. He also protested against the suggestion that because all hon. members were not lawyers, the House Should not express any opinion. He said that the House had every right to express such an opinion. He thought that this question came within the province of the House, and that the hon. member who had moved was quite right in asking the House to express an opinion.

said that never in all his Parliamentary experience had he seen such an insignificant matter occupy the attention of a House for so long a period; that was, if the question had been adhered to, but they now saw the cloven hoof appear. Some of the hon. members were right when they said they saw something behind the question. He thought it would have been better had the House carried a vote of thanks to the Administrator for the way he had hurried on things. He wanted to put it clearly that if that was the correct interpretation, that the Act of Union, by clearly stating that certain matters were distinctly referred to the Provincial Councils was a blind only that this Union Parliament could go behind and overrule the Provincial Councils, it would be a distinct and a gross breach of faith towards the smaller colonies which had entered the Union. He would not go into the whole question, but he simply raised a protest against such a construction being placed on the Act of Union, because of the breach of faith that was involved. He went on to refer to the Transvaal Act, which stated that a Director of Education should be appointed by the Governor, and be subject to the direction and control of the Minister. The question was: Who was the Minister for the purpose? So they had to look into the Act of Union. It stated that certain matters were delegated to the Provincial Councils, and from his reading he took it that the Administrator was the Minister for the purpose referred to in the Act. The Act complained of was simply a matter of administration pure and simple a question of acting on business principles. Don’t let them see danger behind when there was no danger. It was merely a short, cut to do business in a business like way and out of it had arisen all this hullabaloo, which had wasted the time of the House.

said it was proverbial that short cuts were dangerous, and this was one of the dangerous short cuts. He pointed out, that had the question been so insignificant as had been suggested, it would not have appeared on the paper. It was because they saw behind what, the Minister had called the cloven hoof that they had deliberately placed this question on the paper, with a view to having the matter thrashed out in the House, and showing, if possible, the cloven hoof behind. Nobody on the other side of the House had denied that the action was illegal; but the cloven hoof lay in the fact that if the law was allowed to be broken in insignificant matters, it would be broken in more important matters. He (the hon. member) had been a member of the Witwatersrand School Board, and though he could with pleasure say that they dealt with a fair-minded Minister, they had to jealously guard their rights and privileges, else these might have disappeared. They wanted the law carried out as far as possible literally; once the law was broken, they had a right to bring the matter to the notice of the House. Their safeguard was the law.

said that the Minister of Lands had mentioned that that was a very trivial matter and a waste of time. Just to show who had wasted the time, it was worth while to call attention to this: that notice had been given on Friday last to the Government, and the Government could have provided itself at least with the circular, and the Minister of Justice could easily have got up and said that that had or had not been in accord with the law, and stopped the discussion. If he had said it was not in accord with the law, he could have given notice to the Administrator that he should stop that practice. There had been a shirking of the question by the Government, and the Hon. the Minister for Railways had made One of those five-minutes-to-six speeches the previous afternoon, and had not dealt with the merits of the matter.

There were none to deal with. (Laughter.)

went on to say that when it had been stated that they on the Opposition had deliberately been trying to cause ill-feeling between the Provincial Councils and that Parliament, he might point out to the hon. member that they were protecting the rights of the Provincial Councils, which had not yet had the right of exercising them. If the Government had called the Provincial Councils together, and they had had a chance of electing an Executive Council, it would have been a different matter. They had been told that, that Parliament had no right, to intervene. They had heard the Minister of the Interior talking of his fondness for Oriental methods of the Minister of Justice being in favour of autocratic methods at times, and the Minister of Lands saying that a short cut to evade the law was a good thing to save time. (Laughter.) Clause 86 of the Constitution said that any Ordinance made by the Provincial Councils should have effect in that Province as long, and as far only, as it was not repugnant to any Act of Parliament. Well, he took the Act of Union to be an Act of Parliament, and the Act of Union said that the existing laws should stand. It, did not state that the Administrator had the power to alter any Act; and if it could be done in a little thing, it could also be done in a big thing. He had heard, with the utmost amazement, the statement that the Central Parliament had no power—a statement made by a gentleman who, a few days ago, had talked of maintaining the military system and sovereign Parliament.

said something about pin-pricks.

Protecting the rights of the Provincial Councils and maintaining the law are not pin-pricks. If it was laid down that we, as a Parliament, have no right to deal with these matters, we should not do so. The cloven hoof which the hon. gentlemen referred to is again peeping out. (Laughter.)

explained to the House what the result is of “voting on the previous question.”

The “previous question” was put and negatived.

in moving the second reading, said that that was another of those small consolidating Bills which were now being brought before the House to render legislation uniform throughout the Union. At present there were 17 different Statutes in the Union dealing with marriage, and although there was a general similarity in the different Provinces, there were also marked differences, which he thought it would be very essential to do away with in the Union. The hon. member proceeded to point out some of the principal differences which he said it would be useful to do away with without delay. In the first place, with regard to persons who were under the law, allowed to marry each other, there were provisions making it permissible for a surviving spouse to marry his deceased wife’s sister in two of the Provinces, but not in the other two. It was clear that a state of affairs like that in South Africa could not be perpetuated, and it was the object of the Bill to assimilate that provision for the whole of South Africa. He thought it would be the most important provision in the Bill which would allow a man in the Union to marry his deceased wife’s sister, and a woman to marry her deceased husband’s brother. Again, in the Cape Province a Christian Minister was, ipso facto, a marriage officer; but a Jewish or a Mohammedan minister had to be specially appointed, and Magistrates were ex-officio marriage officers. In Natal, however, the latter had specially to be appointed. In the Free State, ministers, priests, and missionaries, who were authorised by the Government as marriage officers, could celebrate marriages; but a Magistrate could not be appointed except by special order, when there was no minister in the place. In the Transvaal all Magistrates were, ex-officio, marriage officers, and all other persons had to be specially appointed. He thought that the Transvaal law in that respect should be the law of the Union. There were at present anomalies in regard to special licences, and if a marriage were to be consummated by special licence in the Orange Free State an Executive Council resolution had first to be obtained. In some of the Provinces there were separate laws dealing with the marriage of coloured people, and in that Bill it was intended to have a uniform law.

said that the Bill made no provision for the case where one of the parties was on the high seas. Under the present law both parties had to remain three weeks in the country or go to the expense of obtaining a special licence before they could be married. He suggested that the Minister should amend sub-section 4 of clause 9 so as to require persons who wished to get a special licence to make a declaration not only in the form “ A” in the second schedule of the Act, but in such other forms as the regulations might prescribe. In clause 22 the Governor-General in Council had power to make regulations, and he hoped the Minister would adopt this suggestion and make regulations which were suitable to the special circumstances of Natal, because if the Bill were passed as it stood it would simply be impossible for any widow or widower in Natal to get a special licence.

welcomed the Bill because it removed the existing differences in provincial laws. The latter often led to marriages between parties from the Transvaal, for instance, being solemnised in the Free State where certain restrictions did not operate. He wanted to know whether clergymen who were appointed marriage officers became Civil Servants. Formerly, the contracting parties first went to the Magistrate; it was only after the civil marriage that members of religious congregations had the marriage solemnised in church, but it appeared that now-a-days clergymen were the only officers required. He warned against that state of affairs, because in by-gone ages the Roman Catholic Church had a monopoly as far as the solemnisation of marriages were concerned, and the State had all its work cut out when it decided to change that. Another objection to the Bill was that it allowed mixed marriages to go on. The Transvaal Act of 1878 prohibited marriages between whites and coloured people, and in Committee he would move an amendment with the same end in view.

asked whether the Minister wished to deprive coloured persons in the Transvaal entering into legal marriages from having recourse to the ordinary courts of law in case they desired to institute an action for divorce, because that would be the effect of the Bill if it were passed into law in its present form.

said that the Bill opened the door for some sensible and up-to-date legislation. He suggested that marriages should not be solemnised between persons until they had produced certificates that they were physically fit. He protested against the publication of banns, and said that, nominally, in the Australian law there was a provision for licences, but it meant nothing. He could not understand why, here, the fee should be so high as £6. Regarding the marriage of cousins, he considered that the clause relating to it should not be allowed to remain in the Act. Dr. W. B. Carpenter had given figures in support of his contention against such marriages, but they had been confuted. It was the House’s duty to see that the marriage of the unfit was prohibited, and a clause dealing with that should be introduced into the Bill. He was not interested in sentiment—in what was called love— (laughter)—but was in the future of the nation and the perpetration of the race. They should do away with that £5 fee for special licences, for it was a tax on marriage. He hoped the Minister would take his suggestions into consideration, but did not hope for success, for there was too much human nature involved.

asked why the Minister had omitted, in this “consolidating” Bill, to insert the Transvaal provision, prohibiting mixed marriages. In his (the speaker’s) constituency there were but few white people, but half a million of natives—not “coloured” people, such as one found in other parts of the Union. These raw natives ostracised any of their own people who mixed with whites. The feeling against intermarriage was very strong even among them, and for that reason the old Transvaal prohibition had never led to any difficulty. He trusted the hon. member for Rustenburg would move his amendment when the time came, but he would warn the hon. member against the use of the term “of European descent,” because it was a delusion and a snare. Another objection to the Bill was the power given to a Court to authorise a girl’s marriage, despite the father’s wishes.

also wanted to know why the prohibition of mixed marriages had not been included in the Bill.

said that, so far from agreeing with the hon. member for Zoutpansberg on the subject of the father’s consent, he considered the provision for the authority of the Court to prevail where consent was unreasonably withheld a very useful one. A recent case in the Transvaal had demonstrated this. A father refused to consent to his daughter’s marriage on frivolous grounds. The Court was of opinion that he should not have refused, but it had no power to alter the father’s decision. He was opposed to cousins marrying, and would move an amendment in Committee accordingly.

said that in regard to clause 2, there was a modification which should not be. It was legal for a widower to marry his deceased wife’s sister, and with that he agreed. But there was a limit. Although a man could do that the Bill made it illegal for him to marry his deceased wife’s sister if she happened to be the widow of his deceased brother. There was no blood relation there, so why should there be a restriction? They allowed cousins to marry, and so thought the Bill might be altered in this respect.

said he did not think that the question of native marriages should concern them at the present time. He supported the measure.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

The committee stage was set down for Friday.

moved the following amendment, of which he had given notice: In line 20 omit “appropriate revenues” and substitute “Consolidated Revenue Fund, or, if the action or proceedings be instituted against the Minister of Railways and Harbours, out of the Railway and Harbour Fund.”

On a point of order, is there a quorum present?

thought that there was not.

What is a quorum?

Thirty.

A few hon. members having come in, the necessary quorum was present, and the business was proceeded with.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered on Friday.

seconded.

This was agreed to.

said he would like to point out to the hon. member who had moved the amendment that the Bill was not an innovation at all. The power objected to had existed in the Transvaal for some years. It had been taken over simply in order to save litigants considerable expense. Cases might occur in which the Court of Appeal would see that, by examining a single witness, they could decide without referring the matter back to the Court of first instance. In England the same principle prevailed, and he trusted the amendment would not be pressed.

said that to be guided by affidavits ex parte without the right of cross-examination or replying affidavits would be giving too great power. As to what the Minister of Justice had said about the Supreme Court of England, the final Court of Appeal there was the House of Lords or the Privy Council.

I should have thought that this was the most important thing of all, because the evidence which will be required on affidavit will be the kind of formal evidence which is very necessary to come to a decision at any point, but sending back to the Court of first instance is totally superfluous and very costly.

said he was not yet convinced that the clause in question would not lead to more expense for both parties, instead of to less. In most cases it would be cheaper for a lawsuit to be heard for the second time in the local court than to be sent to Cape Town or Bloemfontein for final decision. Though his conviction remained unshaken, he would withdraw the amendment.

asked the Minister of Justice for particulars regarding the working of the clause.

replied (inaudible).

disagreed with the last speaker. He thought that litigation would be cheapened, because evidence would only be called on the direction of the Judges.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved a proviso to clause 4, provided that the Appellate Division shall not have power to receive further evidence, as aforesaid, except by consent of both parties to the case. He felt certain that the Minister would accept this proviso, because it did not affect the question of cost, and did not affect the power of the Appellate Division.

expressed sorrow that he did not think he could consent to the amendment. If a man thought he had any chance of appeal, he would do everything except consent to this. The Court of Appeal was the highest court in the land, and he could not see that it should be restricted as to the taking of evidence where no such restriction was placed on any court below. He could quite imagine that some persons would like that very much, but really did not think that they should institute anything of that sort. It would frustrate the whole idea. He hoped the hon. member would see that it was going to be a restriction, not worthy of the Court of Appeal. The Court was either competent to take evidence in the first instance, or it was not. If it was not, they should not give it the right at all; and if it was, they should not place restrictions on the Court of Appeal.

said the Minister of Justice talked about restricting the powers of the Court of Appeal, but those powers would not be given until this clause was passed, and at that moment the Appellate Division had no power to call evidence. Therefore, it was absurd to talk about restricting the powers of the Appellate Division, when they were extending them, and this restriction was simply a restriction on that very extension. What the Minister of Justice wanted was simply to extend the powers of the Appellate Division to make them equal to the Court in the first instance, as regarded the calling of fresh evidence. Now he (Mr. Long) was proposing to give them that power, but only to call fresh evidence when both parties were agreeable. If they put in this proviso, they would take the whole sting out of the clause. If there was some important point in a case on which fresh evidence might be taken, then both sides would be equally willing to have fresh evidence called. It was absurd to say that they would never have consent given by both sides. He hoped the Minister of Justice, on having had time to consider this proviso, would see that, as a matter of fact, it was going to aid the appellant, and was going to rob the clause of its very serious objection.

said that his experience of advocates was that they wanted to win their cases as soon as possible, and, in the first instance. But granted that Mr. Long was right, let him put this to him. He (Mr. Long) had no objection to the Court of Appeal referring a case back when further evidence was required to the Court in the first instance without the consent of the parties. Well, the same card the barrister had up his sleeve for the Court of Appeal could be up his sleeve for the Court in the first instance. He thought the last argument of his hon. friend went to show that this proviso was superfluous.

said there was a very great distinction between referring cases back to the Court in the first instance and the almost trivial matter of sending a case down for taking a certain deposition before a Commissioner. There was a very serious difference, with regard to the consent of both parties, his argument was that it was very often done, and it would give the one side the right to refuse to call fresh evidence.

The proviso of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:—

moved that the word “sue” be deleted in line 33, and that the word “proceed” be inserted. The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

moved: In line 12 omit “any such,” and substitute “the law”; in line 13 omit “inconsistent with the context,” and substituite “the contrary intention therein appear.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3,

In reply to an hon. member,

said that he thought the definition given in the clause of “Gazette” was quite sufficient. He moved as an amendment, in lino 28 omit “and,” and in fine 29 omit the whole of paragraph (c).

said it seemed to him that there was ground for the objection raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan). There was no trouble with regard to laws established after Union, but in the case of laws which had been in force before Union the question arose as to where notices and regulations in these laws were to be published.

asked that the clause be allowed to stand over.

This was agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 were verbally amended.

moved the deletion of clause 11. He stated that this was a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Treasury, and would be dealt with by the Treasury.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 13,

said he thought that this was a thing that applied to the civil rights of man, and should not be placed in an Interpretation Bill.

asked the Minister of Justice to take that particular portion of the Act, because he was shortly going to introduce an Act to consolidate the criminal laws.

said the only difficulty was that it was in the Interpretation Clause in the Free State. It was not found anywhere else. When they consolidated those laws they must either take it up here, or say in this Act “repeal the Free State,” or leave that section standing.

urged the Minister to reconsider the question, seeing that he was consolidating the law relating to criminal procedure. It was a novel thing for the Government to extend a Free State Ordinance throughout the Union. It was not needed, and it seemed a case of patchwork legislation.

said he thought the provision was as fair as the one taken from the old Cape Colony laws.

thought that it might be put in another part of the measure.

said that if he were to stand up and defend the clause on its merits, he would be pleased to do so, because he thought that it was an exceedingly fair provision.

said he was afraid he was misunderstood. He quite agreed with General Hertzog. He came to his aid, and received a rebuke. (Laughter.)

said that under the Act a man could be prosecuted twice. It only said he could not be punished twice. He moved, to meet the case, that “prosecution or” be inserted before the word “punishment.”

Does the hon. member mean that either means both? (Laughter.)

The Hon. the Minister may not see the point. It is a perfectly simple one. None is so blind as those who won’t see. Let me point out that if the Bill had shopped at the words “common law,” it would have been quite clear.

Of course, English is not my language. I would leave it to my hon. friend to say what should be. (Laughter.)

said that if everything after the word “but” had been deleted, it would have been all right.

supported the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). The words after “but” were unnecessary, and created a doubt as to what had gone before. What was the sense of putting in the words?

remarked that the word “but” should have been “and.” Would that suit the hon. member?

No. The hon. member pointed out that the meaning was not clear, and doubts would be created by the words after “but.”

On the motion of Dr. L. S. JAMESON (Albany), progress was reported, and leave asked to sit on the following day.

from C. J. Stewart, Messenger on the establishment of the Civil Commissioner, Stellenbosch.

from inhabitants of Harrismith, Orange Free State, praying the House to influence the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State to give redress by repeal of sections 15 and 16 of the School Act, 1908.

from H. W. Willmer, Assistant in the Post Office, Cape Town.

from John Ball, ex-stableman in the Table Bay Harbour Board.

from John Fourie, labourer and ganger in the Railway Department, Cape.

from W. Brown, Clerk in the office of the Assistant General Manager of Railways.

from F. Z. Smyth, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from A. Molloy, ex-chief constable, Cathcart.

from H. M. Shedman, Locomotive Department, Cape Government Railways.

from G. Jeffery, engine-driver, Cape Government Railways.

from J. T. Harrop, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from A. E. Gee, carriage trimmer, Salt River Railway Works.

from R. B. Matheson, carpenter, Salt River Railway Works.

from A. Janson, labourer, Salt River Railway Works.

from J. H. Greentree, machinist, Salt River Railway Works.

from T. D. Bliss, screwer, Salt River Railway Works.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in view of the need of railway extension in the Humansdorp and Uniondale districts, the Government will request the members of the Railway Board to visit those districts for the purpose of making investigations?

said it was not the intention of the Government to ask the Railway Board to proceed to the districts named. He added that the question as to whether a railway was to be built was not a matter for the consideration of the Board at all. The initiation of railways was a matter for the Government; after that had been decided upon, then the Railway Board inquired as to whether a railway would pay or otherwise. But in the initiatory stages the Railway board was not required to indicate whether a line was desirable or not. When the time arrived for considering the question of railway construction generally, no doubt the districts named in the question would receive attention.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will suggest to the Railway Board to have a survey made of the proposed railway line between Somerset East and Kliplaat, with a view to the construction of the said line?

said it was not the intention of the Government to have a survey made now.

asked the Minister of Justice whether applications from members of the Transvaal Police to be placed on the married strength of the force are dealt with in order of the seniority of the men making the applications, and, if not, what principle is observed as to the order in which such applications are granted?

said that the applications were dealt with in order of priority of application. This system had been in vogue since the amalgamation of the forces in 1908.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in order to give the inhabitante of the Vryburg and Mafeking districts the advantage of the principle laid down in section one hundred and twenty-seven of the South Africa Act, 1909, the Government intend to expropriate and acquire the section of railway between Vryburg and Ramathlabama Spruit?

said that the Government had no power to expropriate. It could only be done by the consent of the British S.A. Company. No power was reserved to the Government to expropriate, and it was not the intention of the Government immediately to acquire, the section of the line referred to.

asked the Minister of Finance: (a) Whether his attention has been called to the difficulties in which druggists in the Cape Province are placed in consequence of the indefinite provisions of the Licences and Stamp Act, 1908; (b) whether he has been approached by any responsible body to suspend the operation of the Act in connection with certain grievances, until some more uniform method of taxation can be adopted; and (c) whether he is prepared in the meantime to consider the advisability of issuing a list of taxable articles, so that druggists may be freed from the chaos in which they at present find themselves?

said that the answer to the first part of the question was in the affirmative. With regard to the second point, representations had been made on the subject, but it was manifestly impossible to suspend the operation of the Act as suggested by the hon. member. As to the last part of the question, he had given instructions to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to confer with the persons affected by the Act, with a view to drawing up a list of articles which were not subject to taxation.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the Government has received a report from the Railway Commissioners regarding the extension of the railway from Stuartstown to Union Bridge; and whether it is the intention of the Government to construct the line at an early date?

said that no report had been received from the Railway Commissioners. He would have been exceeding his power if he had asked them to make a report. He did not know what his hon. friend meant by “an early date”; but it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the extension immediately.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether it is his intention to introduce legislation during the present session to bring the Municipalities under the control of the Provincial auditors?

said that this was a matter entirely for the Provincial Councils.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether it is a fact that on the Rand men, who are neither mining engineers, nor certificated mine managers have been appointed mining inspectors; (2) whether it is a fact that in the Transvaal there is no legal or definite qualification required for the position of inspector of mines; and (3) whether he will consider the practicability and wisdom of reverting to some such provisions as were required by Transvaal Law, No. 12 of 1898?

said that in regard to the first question, all inspectors of mines on the Rand were either mining engineers or certificated mine managers, with the exception of one, who was a certificated mine overseer. The answer to the second question was in the affirmative, and with regard to the third point, it had been the invariable practice during the last nine years to appoint only persons who had such qualifications as those mentioned, and under the circumstances it did not appear necessary to alter the present law.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a Mint in the Union?

said that the question had been engaging the attention of the Government for some time past. Steps were being taken to collect all available information on the subject, especially from the Mint authorities of the United Kingdom; but there was no prospect of any legislation in the direction indicated by the hon. member being introduced during the present session.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that several of the Witwatersrand Gold Mining Companies are now requiring drill-sharpeners to sharpen drills underground; and (.2) whether, in view of the unhealthy and dangerous condition of the mines, the Government will, in the mining regulations, introduce a clause rendering illegal the sharpening of drills and repairing of machines anywhere but on the surface?

said that the practice referred to had been in progress for a considerable time on the Witwatansrand, mainly as the result of the increased depths at which mining was now being conducted. Inquiries made during the last year showed that, with the exception of a few cases, which had since been rectified, the mines in which the practice was in progress were well ventilated, and in no way dangerous for the men engaged in such sharpening. In the draft regulations provision was made against the carrying on of the practice wherever it was injurious to health, and this provision would also be embodied in the new regulations.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware: (1) That a number of the daily paid staff employed on the Cape section of the South African Railways suffered deductions in pay varying from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. in May, 1907; (2) that although two increases have recently been given, and a portion of the 5 per cent. returned to certain members of the staff, no redress has been meted out to these servants, although from time to time representations have been made to the authorities; (3) that the period of service of these men varies from 10 years to 20 years in some instances, and that they have been, and are still, performing duties side by side with other servants who have only suffered the loss of 5 per cent. for one year; and (4) whether the Government is prepared to consider the question of granting the men redress?

said it was difficult to answer the question either in the affirmative or in the negative. It would require a good deal of explanation. Some of the statements were correct, and others were what they might call otherwise. As to the latter part of the question, he could only say that if they had grievances he would be glad to hear them, and redress them if possible.

asked the Minister of Justice whether the Government intends to introduce, during this session, legislation consolidating the laws relating to patents in the various Provinces of the Union; and, if so, whether such legislation will provide that patents taken out since May 31, 1910, in any one Province, are protected throughout the Union?

said that the Government did not intend to introduce during this session legislation consolidating the law relating to patents in the various Provinces of the Union. It was their intention, however, to introduce legislation in the matter during the next session of Parliament.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether the Government will take into favourable consideration the question of extending the “agricultural packet post” system of Natal and the Transvaal to the rest of the Union?

said that information and figures were being collected, which he hoped would show that an early extension of the system was justifiable.

asked the Minister of Finance what steps the Government intend to take to secure an audit of the expenditure of the several colonies forming the Union, from July 1, 1909, to May 31, 1910?

said that the auditors of the various colonies had carried on their work continuously up to May 31, since when it had been proceeded with under the direction of the Union Controller and Auditor-General. He would report with all possible despatch on the position of each of the colonies at the date of Union.

I presume the report will be laid before Parliament.

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Lands: Whether the Union Government has purchased for use in Natal steam ploughs and other agricultural implements for use with mechanical traction, and also plant for mechanical traction and transport; and, if so, (2) by whom were these articles ordered, on what authority, and from what firms; (3) what was the cost of the various implements, machines, and plant landed in Natal; and (4) in what district and for the benefit of what individuals have the various implements, machines, and plant been utilised so far?

said that information was being obtained. He asked the hon. member to allow the question to stand over for a few days. He pointed out that it was not always possible to give answers to questions at a few hours’ notice.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the principle of granting a local allowance, which had hitherto been applied to Civil Servants residing in up-country districts, where the cost of living is higher than in other parts of the Union, will be made applicable to Civil Servants who have recently been appointed to similar districts where rents and the cost of living are excessive?

said that the question was one for the Civil Service Commission, and until that Commission had reported no decision could be arrived at.

Reports and correspondence on the provisions of the Education Acts of the four Provinces for the teaching of the English and Dutch languages and their use as media of instruction.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House the provisions of the Orange Free State Education Acts are in conflict with the principles of freedom and of equality of opportunity embodied in the South Africa Act, 1909, inasmuch as such provisions compel children to receive instruction through the medium of both English and Dutch, constitute an infringement of the rights of parents, operate unfairly against certain sections of the teaching staff, make it impossible to obtain an adequate number of efficient teachers, tend to accentuate racial divisions, and inflict grave injury upon the education of the country.” In moving the above, the hon. member said that he did so with the fullest feeling of responsibility. He knew that that question was one of the most difficult which could be faced in the House. He knew full well that the question of education and of language was one which had caused more differences in the past than anything else, and he knew that any member of the House who moved a matter of that kind in the House was face to face with a responsibility for his words, which he, for one, felt most deeply when he addressed the House on that most important subject. Surely that House was the place in which to discuss such differences, if they had them. They were far more likely to come to a solution of their differences if they faced them in that House, and if they considered and discussed them in reasonable language and reasonable terms, face to face, when outside the House they had a discussion going on which was quite unnecessary, and passions being raised which were best left alone. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. member quoted the words of an eminent South African, who had said that each race was fully justified in maintaining its language rights. When he came to the House with the motion which stood to his name, he wished it to be fully understood that on his side there was no opposition to the Dutch language as a language. There was no prejudice on their part, and there was no desire to do any damage to that language. They fully recognised the rights which were given to that language in the Act of Union, and all that they asked was that that Act should be carried out in its entirety in South Africa. Surely everyone in that House did fully accept the terms of Union. (Cheers.) “My hon. friend laughs,” said the hon. member, referring to an hon. member on the Ministerial side of the House; “my hon. friend is accustomed to laugh in this House, except when the House is addressed from the back benches of his own side, and on this subject I think it would be better for the hon. member to listen to the debate and to the imperfect language with which I address the House, rather than to sketch in the House.” Proceeding, Colonel Crewe said that what they objected to, and what, had not been provided for in the Act of Union, was that there was in one of the Provinces a dual medium, and that that dual medium should be compulsory. That was the whole objection they had to the Act in the Orange Free State. It might be asked: why did they select the Acts of the Orange Free State, and those Acts alone? For the simple reason that the Act of 1910 had been passed after the Act of Union, after the sittings of the Convention; after the Act of Union itself had been adopted in 1910, Undoubtedly there was a certain uproar in that Province, and there were a certain number of people who were suffering from injustice, or who thought that they were suffering from injustice — (“ Hear, hear,” from the Ministerial benches) — and, therefore, it was their duty to direct their attention to that Province. In the Cape Province they had had Education Acts in recent years—they had the School Board Act in 1905, which had been brought into effect while the right hon. the leader of the Opposition was in power, and both sides of the House had on that occasion come to an agreement on the measure. A modified Act had later been introduced, and had been adopted by both sides of the House; and education in the whole of the Cape Province might be said to be at peace, although there had been ebullitions at times. (Laughter.) In Natal there was no compulsion of any kind, and in that Province he believed that there was everywhere a feeling of satisfaction as regards the Education Acts of that Province. In the Transvaal, although there it was not quite so satisfactory as his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Nathan) had tried to make out, on the previous day, still it was a matter of detail, and they were not going to have perfect Education Acts in each Province; but in the Transvaal an Act had been introduced by the present Prime Minister, when Prime Minister of the Transvaal, which, on the whole, had given satisfaction. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, when one came to one Province where there was a position which naturally caused everybody in South Africa very grave anxiety, what were they to do? The right hon. gentleman (General Botha) had proposed that there should be co-operation, and did they object to that? Not in the least. They (the Government) had got to put that into practical effect if they wanted a solution—(hear, hear)—and it was because they wanted the Prime Minister to put that into effect that he (Colonel Crewe) said that they must come to that House for an expression of opinion; and they could only do so on points where there was serious trouble. He hoped that he was not going into details of election speeches; they all, he supposed, got a little warmer sometimes on the platform than in that House, but he thought that on the platform there had been some declarations of policy which they had a right to ask should be carried out by the hon. member who made them at Johannesburg. If the Government was anxious to find a solution, there were a number of people who sat on his side of the House who would be only too anxious to assist the Government, as had happened in 1905 and 1908. He could only say that they might rest assured that they (the Government) would get the co-operation of anybody who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, if the hon. member translated the policy he had enumerated at Johannesburg into deeds. (Opposition cheers.) Only on Tuesday last the debate had taken the line of education, and he hoped that the argument would not take that dine that day, but if it did, it would only be natural. But apart from that altogether, would the hon. gentlemen who sat opposite, when hon. members who sat behind them and said that they had serious grievances, give them the same answer which they had given to members of the Opposition? No; hon. members who sat behind the Government would say: “You must find a way,” and so they (the Opposition) said to the Government, “You must find a way, too.” He did not desire for one moment to disturb the amicable relations which had existed in the House during the short period in which it had sat. An hon. member had come to him and had said: “You put that resolution on the paper, and you are going to disturb the whole pleasant relations which have existed in the past.” His answer was that it was all very well if one had got everything which one wanted, and one was perfectly satisfied. You had nothing to complain about. But they had the right to complain if people were suffering from injustice. They had the right to address their remarks on that injustice to that House. How would their silence be construed, if they were silent on that point? It would, first of all, be construed as an approval of the state of affairs which existed in the Orange Free State. They had already been asked why they had been so silent since September 15. The reason was because they (the Opposition) wanted to bring their arguments to that House. They held very strongly the view that Education Acts were wrong if they brought about injustice, and were doing most material harm and injury. (Hear, hear.) Well, if they did not move in this House they would be told that they condoned the Act and if they did move they would probably be told that the time was inopportune, and that they were exciting passions and feelings best left alone. Well, he made his friends opposite a present of the two arguments, because they could not have it both ways. If he might sneak to Dutch members he would only say this: On his side of the House there was absolute admiration for their patriotic devotion to their language, and all they (the Opposition) asked was that their friends on the other side would consider that they were other people in this country who were equally devoted and patriotic to their language. (Hear, hear.) And he knew this: if they could bring it home to the Dutch members that education was suffering for that Act, at some future time there would be a rebellion in their ranks on this Act, which was doing their children damage, for there were no people in this country who looked to the education of their children more than the Dutch. But there were other people in the country. And what was found in the Free State? Any advantages were spoken of as gains, but if they were gains to some they were losses to others, and one felt so much the necessity for the consideration of both people that one felt that there should be no desire for gains, but to carry out the Act of Union and give equality to both languages. They had a position in the Free State which was very unfortunate. There a language which was used the world over was wholly insufficiently taught, not only to children whoso mother tongue it was, but to others also.

Question!

Question? Sir, the answer to that is, there is no question. There is no question; but, sir, it is not because, knowing that, we desire to place disabilities on another race whose mother tongue is not English. Proceeding he said they desired to put no disabilities on them, for their language was useful to the country; but he was perfectly certain that there was not a single Dutch parent in this country who did not realise to the fullest extent the benefits to be derived from his children learning English. (Hear, hear.) He knew in the Cape Colony, where there had been a good deal of trouble, a person of Dutch extraction who had a great deal to do with School Board management, and said he must have Dutch for this and that; but his own child was being educated in an English school in an English centre. That was the answer to his hon. friend, who was, very likely, having his own children educated in another place where English was taught. Every child should have Dutch taught to him, and the English parent who did not have his child taught Dutch was very foolish, for they would find it was a disability not to have learnt it. A great many members sitting on his side of the House, in which Dutch was spoken very much, regretted very sincerely that they were not able to follow the debate fully. But he had put the point which he wanted to make: “To the parents be left the decision,” and if the parent wanted his children taught in the Dutch language through the medium of Dutch, and only Dutch, he would regret it; but would leave it to the parents. (Hear, hear.) That was one of the grievances in the Free State Act—that it left the parents no choice. It was upon that that they (the Opposition) based their case. The Education Act in the Orange Free State had led the hon. member (the Minister for Justice) to make a statement which he (Colonel Crewe) was sure he must regret. It only showed the damage done to education, when, in his own Parliament, he found it necessary to say in 1910 that if the English children refused to learn Dutch they might stop up their ears with wadding or mud. Was that a statement to be made by a responsible Minister, when he turned round in his own House, and set an example for extreme language and extreme temper, which he (Colonel Crewe) hoped would not be followed in this House? What was the state of affairs arising out of the Acts of 1908 and 1910? He would put all details on one side, for he was not going to attempt to take the House into detailed cases. He could only say that in the Orange Free State there was very serious trouble indeed, and no hon. member on the Government side of the House could deny it. There was very serious trouble. They might close their eyes to it—

Caused by whom?

By you, by the hon. gentleman, the Minister for Justice, because he would not listen to the warnings that came, as they in the Cape listened. In 1905 we had to have a compromise, and in 1908 we had to have a compromise. It was only compromises that kept us from, dropping. His hon. friend had a huge majority behind him, and forced his Acts down their throats, despite the warnings he (Colonel Crewe) had read. There was immense dissatisfaction, and although possibly that was exaggerated in some cases, still, brushing that aside, it must be admitted that parents would not, without good reason, pay school taxes, and at the same time send their children to separate schools here to be educated at greater cost. That had been done sometimes by Dutch and sometimes by English, but never without reason, for parents did not make sacrifices of that kind unless there was some very serious ground. The chief object of the motion he had put before the House was to find a solution of the difficulty, and to obtain some expression of opinion on the matter, which might be of use in guiding the Provincial Council in the O.F.S., when it met, in whatever course it might decide to take in regard to educational legislation. That brought him to the question of the responsibility of Parliament and the responsibility of that House. He was perfectly certain in his own mind that the Act of Union fixed the responsibility as far as possible upon the central and sovereign Parliament. Without having been a member of the Convention, and without, therefore, knowing the secrets of that body, there was quite sufficient in the Act itself to make good this ease. First of all, section 59 said: “Parliament shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Union.” Was there good government in the Free State? (An HON. MEMBER: “Yes.”) Good for those people who had a majority, but not for those in the minority, It all depended from which side they looked at it. If they were prepared to say that good government was that which satisfied the majority, that doctrine would hit hon. members opposite some day very seriously, because they would not sit on the Government benches for ever. Clause 85 of the Act of Union stated that subject to its provisions, Provincial Councils might make Ordinances in relation, among other things, to education other than higher education for a period of five years. Clause 86 laid it down that any Ordinance made by a Provincial Council should have effect so far as it was not repugnant to an Act of Parliament. He maintained that the Free State Education Act was repugnant to the Act under which that Parliament existed, and to the Constitution or Grondwet, of the country. He now came to the Act of 1908, which was passed prior to the sitting of the Convention. It contained principles of compulsion—of that there could be no shadow of doubt, although there were exemptions here and there. But exemptions were not principles, and the principle was compulsion. Then there was the Teacher’s Act, which was passed by the Free State in March, 1910. That that was an infringement of the Act of Union he (thought none could have any doubt. Section 157 of the Act of Union laid it down that both English and Dutch should be the official languages of the Union, and should be treated on a footing of equality—(his hon. friend went on equality of compulsion)—and should possess and enjoy equal freedom, rights, and privileges. Clause 135 stated that subject to the provisions of the Act, all the laws in force in the several colonies at the establishment of Union should continue in force until repealed or amended by Parliament. He questioned whether the Free State Act of 1910 had the force of law, because it was subject to the provisions of the Act of Union. The Free State Classification of Teachers Act was passed in 1910 in a dying Parliament. Since May 31—the date of the coming into force of the Act of Union —there had been only one body which had any power at all, and that was the Governor-General-in-Council, until the meeting of Parliament. As the Provincial Councils were not in session, that Parliament was the only place where the matter could be discussed, because he did not suppose that hon. members opposite were going to suggest that the Opposition should go to the Law Courts over the matter. If it were desired to find a precedent for Parliament giving its opinion on a question of law, if the hon. gentleman (General Hertzog) would look up the “Hansard” of the old Cape Parliament, he would find that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) came to that House for an opinion as to what the law was and meant. So long as the Governor-General was responsible to the House, and there was no Provincial Council, they had a right to bring this matter to the House. And they came because they said that if these Acts were in violation with the Constitution of the country, and there was only one place to which they could come, and that was the House. Now, he wanted to deal with his hon. friend the Minister of Railways. He (the Minister for Railways) was good enough to say, in the course of the campaign, that this was only an election cry. The Minister for Railways, during the course of the election, said that this was only an election cry and that nothing further would be heard of it after September 15th. For once the Minister for Railways was wrong. He had heard a great deal of it since that time, and he would hear a great deal more. He (the Minister) went on to say while, on this question that what was in the Free State would in time be voluntarily adopted throughout the Union. He said that the majority—that he looked upon it as possible, that the provisions of the Act in force in the Orange Free State might be extended over South Africa.

Voluntarily.

Voluntarily, yes. Like his moral suasion. It is his moral suasion which means his majority. Continuing, the hon. member said that he (the Minister of Railways) had it in his mind in the course of that speech of the possibility of the Education Act of the Free State—or, at any rate, the principles of that measure—being extended over the rest of South Africa, and that was one of the reasons why they were there debating that very question. They wished to see the Act stopped, and not extended, so that it might not do harm to any other part of the Union. What was the history of this affair? Plenty of warning was given before the election as to what would take place both before and after the election. The Minister of Railways must in the excessive zeal he displayed and the work he did in his department have lost sight of what was happening in the Free State—from 1907 in the Orange Free State. From 1907, through 1908, through 1909, and in 1910 there had been trouble in that (Province. He must have closed his eyes and his ears, as the objections began to be raised long before anything was done, because he (the hon. member) must deal with the whole of the trouble from the very start. It had caused all this disturbance, and gone on for something like three years. Surely he must have closed his ears to the appeals of the majority there. Surely they could not have paid attention to the warnings given by more than one member of the House when the (Bill was under discussion in 1910. That hon. member had said: “How were the English-speaking people going to take it? These people would take it in this way: they would say, ‘ Here is the top-dog policy again, and so long as we are the underneath dog we will bite as hard as we can.’ If that top-dog policy went on it would be carried into the Union Parliament, and instead of leading statesmen having the opportunity to construct, as they all wanted to construct, and as he felt even members On the Government side wanted to do, they would be discussing these Bills, and cries would go up from all over the country to the Union Parliament in order to have the existing state of things altered.” Then he wont on: “If that sort of thing was going to be the election battle-cry, good and well, let them know it: but he hoped that the Prime Minister would not go out in about a week’s time and talk about broadening the platform of the Unie.” What was the history of the affair? In 1905 there was an agreement. That agreement was signed by, amongst others, the Minister of Justice. In 1907, when the country was given Responsible Government, he did not adhere to his agreement of 1905, and he started on his career of bringing about—as he was eventually successful in doing—compulsion. In 1908 he introduced the School Act, when the objections of the minority were carefully put forward. But he over-rode the minority, and gave them very little relief—a little relief on some minor matters. If anybody wished to see vituperative language he had only to go over some of the speeches that were then made from the Government benches. In 1908 the country became excited by the dismissal of three inspectors, who had been transferred by the Government of the Crown Colony regime to the Responsible Government regime—transferred to the tender mercies of the Minister of Justice, and turned out on the flimsiest of charges without being given an opportunity of stating their case or defending themselves. That caused a disturbance. In spite of that he was not satisfied. The Crown Colony Government generously handed over those servants, and one would have thought that these servants would have been treated generously by the Government in office. But the acute stage of the trouble came in in 1910, in the Teachers’ Act. The Minister for Justice—who was then the Minister for Education in the Free State—was warned in careful tones in the House of the trouble that would be likely to ensue. What was the result? The retirement of an excellent servant—the then Director of Education in the country— because he had said that the Acts were impossible and unworkable. And he believed that he was right in saying that the present Director of Education took the same view—that the Acts were unworkable. He believed that that was the view held by the present Director of Education. The Minister for Justice was perfectly right the other day when he said he had only dismissed one teacher, but there were other ways of getting rid of people than by dismissing them, and the hon. gentleman had succeeded in driving out of the Free State, without dismissing them, an extraordinary number of extremely good and competent teachers, many of whom had found employment under the more liberal methods of the Transvaal and of Natal, and some of whom had gone to Rhodesia, He (Colonel Crewe) had sent to him that morning a copy of a Free State paper, called “Het Schoolblad,” which was written in Dutch and English, and apparently had the support of a considerable number of Dutch teachers, as well as English. This paper spoke of the examination of teachers in these terms: “Our worst fears have been realised. … It has been reserved for the teaching profession of this Province to drain the cup of gall and bitterness to the (last drop.” There was an article which he commended to the Minister for Justice, because he should read it.

I have, thank you.

I am very glad you have, because it is one of the strongest condemnations I have seen vet.

Condemnation of what?

Of the hon. gentleman’s methods in getting rid of teachers in the Free State. He read an extract from the article in “Het Schoolblad,” in the following terms: “Had these men deliberately set themselves to outrage the feelings of the teachers, to spread dissatisfaction in their ranks, to render their work still more arduous and distasteful, to pour contempt on foreign Universities and the degrees conferred by them, to make teaching, even more than it is at present, the stop-gap profession, they could not have succeeded better than they have. Is it not the gravest possible aspersion upon the honour and integrity of the Education Department to be told that, out of the many hundreds of teachers in its employ, only about a score are worthy of being graded in the second class—the vast proportion unqualified, incompetent, not even worthy of receiving a third-class professional certificate?” Proceeding, Col. Crewe said he knew of a case in which the teacher concerned had been vice-principal of a very excellent school in the Free State for eight years. Eighteen months ago she was appointed principal of her school. She had very high qualifications, and she had had something like ten years’ teaching experience. Well, she had got a second grade certificate. The Minister for Justice laughed. Well, he (Colonel Crewe) was aware that the hon. gentleman looked upon the whole thing as a means to an end. He had not considered, as he should have done, the educational qualifications of teachers. That, too, was one of the few troubles in the Transvaal, for they found that the Transvaal Administrator had taken on a number of teachers who had less qualification than was usually required. The Minister for Justice must remember that the Government, with these powers, could easily send individuals adrift if those individuals felt that promotion could not come to them. The trouble in the Free State was very largely due to the precipitateness with which the Minister for Justice had forced this Act upon the Free State, when it was not ready to receive such a drastic change. It was not only the English teachers who complained. The effect of the hon. gentleman’s administration had been to cause trouble throughout the ranks of the teaching profession, both Dutch and English. The result had been that separate schools had been started, schools in which, he was thankful to say, the people who had established them had not insisted on the teaching of one language only. What had caused these separate schools to be started? The Prime Minister, speaking in Johannesburg on July 13, said: “I see a great movement today in the direction of establishing private schools. Now, I can only, as a friend, warn you not to do so.” At this there were cries of “Why?” and ironical laughter. “Rather,” the Prime Minister continued, “than that we start a movement to Separate ourselves from each other, let, us co-operate together, and try to get an Education Act in South Africa acceptable to both races. Private schools can only lead to disunion, and to a spirit of hatred.” That speech was made on the 13th of July, and here they were on the 24th of November in no better position. He (Colonel Crewe) said the time had conic to translate sentiments of that kind into deeds, which would put a stop to this dangerous policy. In the course of the same speech the Prime Minister said: “This Province need not trouble about an Act in any other Province.” Surely the spirit of the Convention was forgotten then. If there was this excitement in the Free State, it must spread over the whole of the country, and it was for that reason that they on that side of the House hoped that the Prime Minister would translate his admirable sentiments into deeds and acts, and would endeavour to assist somehow in putting an end to a position of affairs which was becoming intolerable. They had had speeches from certain Ministers, but they had had no signs of repentance from the Minister for Justice. Certainly his election speeches and those he delivered following the election showed he was determined to carry out his Act if he could, and if he believed in his system, he (Colonel Crewe) knew the (Minister of Justice to be sufficiently honest to endeavour to carry what he believed to be good for one part of the country over the whole. It was for that, reason that they did not trust the whole of the Government. They might have faith in one section, but, unfortunately there were two sections on this matter. (He asked that the Prime Minister should control his Government; he asked that the Prime Minister should carry out his own stated words and his own stated (policy. And what was the (Prime Minister’s policy? It was perfectly definite and perfectly clear. Speaking at Johannesburg in that very large hall to an audience which received him well, he said: “Now, gentlemen, there are three points in the education policy which I want to lay before you to-night as being the expression of may Government. It has been said in the papers that my Government ought to speak out upon this education question. Now gentlemen, the policy—not only my policy but my Cabinet’s policy—is as (follows: (1) (Equal opportunities of language; (2) medium in the mother tongue, even if it costs the State a little more money; (3) no compulsion.” (Cheers.) continuing, the lion, member said it was remarkable with what unanimity the House received those statements, and those statements being received with much unanimity, he took to be a proof that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and his friends who sat behind him were going to vote for the resolution before the House. He claimed the support of the Prime Minister in a policy with which they all agreed, though the question of details required a little attention land a little working out. At the same meeting to which he had referred, the Prime Minister went on to say: “When I first made this statement in Standerton, certain papers criticised it. In the first instance, they said: ‘This is acceptable, but still, General Botha, it is not enough. General Botha must give us something more.’ The paper is said: ‘General Botha must pledge himself at once to repeal the Orange River Colony Education Act.’ That was the first demand. The second demand was that I must promise a Uni-on Act to be passed to make the Act of the Orange River Colony illegal.” That (continued Colonel Crewe) was not what they asked. What they asked was that the Prime Minister should translate his words into deeds, and that he should carry out his avowed principle of equal opportunities in both languages education through the medium of the another tongue, and no compulsion. And that policy must be Carried out in a proper spirit, and not in the spirit which had actuated the Minister for Justice. It was an extension of the trouble that had arisen in the Free State that was feared, and therefore they came to the House to get, if they could, some reasonable assurance from the Government that the policy enunciated in Johannesburg by the Prime Minister would be faithfully carried out. Everybody desired the maintenance of the principles of equality laid down in the South Africa Act and the avoidance of all causes of estrangement between the two races. There was one serious cause of estrangement in the Free State, and he earnestly asked the Prime Minister to remove that. He (Colonel Crewe) believed that if the Minister for Justice went to the Free State and told the members of the Provincial Council that he said this Act was causing trouble amongst the minority of the people, and that he wished to change it his advice would be taken and acted upon, and a change would be made. They all knew perfectly well that the Minister for Justice was a sincere man, and they also believed him to be an honest man, but on the question of education they could not do otherwise than consider him something of a fanatic. His (Colonel Crewe’s) motion did not cover the question whether education should be in the hands of the Provincial Council, it simply asked for an expression of opinion on the part of this House, which could be given to the Provincial Council of the Free State. The trouble he had found all the way through was that the hon. gentleman would not trust the parents in the Free State on the question of education; he would not trust his own people. On August 14, 1908, the hon. gentleman said: “Once granted that it was for the benefit of the child that he should toe instructed through the medium of his mother tongue, then the question was. ‘ What had the parent got to do with it?’” That was the root of the whole trouble. That was very nearly his own trouble at one time an connection with the School Board Act of the Cape Colony in 1905. He contended for the preservation of the control of the parent, and believed that in the preservation lay the solution of the difficulty. He held that the parent was the proper person to say what his child should be taught, and through what medium he should be taught, and he was prepared to throw the whole onus of decision on the parent. There bad recently been a conference of Directors of Education, which he took it was called by the Minister for Education, and the Minister for Education, addressing a deputation on the 21st said: “He felt he might say at once that the four Directors of Education of the four Provinces had recently met with the object of trying to arrive at some uniformity with regard to the Dutch language.” If it were right for the Ministers to call the directors together to discuss this matter, then the Government realised the responsibility which lay upon them, and therefore lay upon the House, to go into the question of language in connection with education. It was certainly a comment upon the statements which have been thrown about that this House was not the proper place in which to discuss education that the Minister of Education had called the Conference together to discuss education, and so possibly arrive at some uniformity with regard to the Dutch language. Well, they all welcomed such a Conference. The Directors of Education were the proper people to deal with the language in connection with education. No doubt they held different views, but if they had arrived at a solution of the question, he thought the House ought to be told what that solution was, because the Directors of Education were not infallible, and one would like to ask what was the result of that Conference. He hoped the Minister of Education would tell the House what the result was. So far Conferences—he was going back to the Free State—had not been very advantageous. There had been Conferences in the Free State, but they seemed scarcely to have fed the hungry, but to have sharpened the appetites of those who had already had sufficient. Let him say this again, that if there was anything arising out of the Conference that the House could be told, if there was any solution possible, let them know about it, because they were anxious to assist them. He was perfectly certain that unless some general solution could be found that would put right the state of affairs in the Free State, the trouble was going to spread further. They had only to take the report of the Director of Education of the Transvaal, who quoted the Minister of the Interior, and who said: “‘ The educational progress and development ’ of the pupils—to quote the precise words—is to be the touchstone in medium questions, and as regards the study of the two languages, the Colonial Secretary in his speech to the Conference was able to point to the fact that the number of those pupils who are not learning both Dutch and English is a negligible quantity.” What he had seen from reading carefully through this report of the Transvaal was that, where there was no compulsion with regard to the Dutch, there was a very general desire on the part of the English-speaking people to learn Dutch, and on the Rand, roughly, 90 per cent. of the children were learning Dutch. That was the result of the principle of toleration. “It is especially encouraging,” said the Director, “to read in the report of a Dutch inspector: ‘The example of Johannesburg cannot fail to have a favourable effect on the teaching of Dutch throughout the colony.’ A second Dutch inspector says that on the West Rand the interest of the non-Dutch-speaking portion of the population has surpassed his expectations, and that about 98 per cent. of the pupils in these schools receive instruction in Dutch.” Well, sir, that was one of the strongest arguments that could be adduced to show that there was no hostility on the part of the English-speaking people to learn Dutch. But, sir, that was without compulsion. That was the whole point. Where they had given toleration they had got everybody practically learning Dutch, but where they had intolerance they had the people standing up and declaring that they would not be dragooned. But that was not the point he wanted to make now; he wanted to make the point that bilingualism, even in the Transvaal, had had a very considerable effect upon the class of teachers taken on during recent years. The Director’s report said that 431 teachers were recruited during the six months ended June 30, 1909. He said: “Take the standard of general education first. Fifty per cent. are below a matriculation standard. In other words, 50 per cent. have not completed a school education before beginning the responsible work of teaching. Moreover, nearly half of this 50 per cent., i.e., nearly 25 per cent, of the whole number, are below the Transvaal school certificate standard; that is to say, they can only be regarded as makeshifts.” One did not want to condemn the policy of the Transvaal, but one wanted to see that bilingualism did not—it must not—be allowed to damage the education of the children, and it is because of the difficulties of the case that he thought that they were not wasting their time in discussing the whole education position. Now, sir, in Natal, toleration and every encouragement is given to the teaching of the Dutch language. There was no sign of hostility to the Dutch language. In the Cape they had absolute peace, though they had troubles in 1905 and 1908. But there was no serious difficulty. What was the position in 1905 and 1908? They introduced a School Board Act, to which hon. members opposite took considerable objection, but which they were able to settle by a Conference, which recommended certain things, to which both sides of the House agreed. In 1908 there was an amendment, an attempt to introduce the language clauses, which were very unsatisfactory to a certain portion of the House. This time a Select Committee of equal numbers from both sides of the House arrived at a solution.

interrupted with a remark, which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

You agreed. I am afraid you would agree to nothing else but equal rights. Wait a minute. Here was the report (he proceeded). He found there was no minority report attached to it. The report was signed by the chairman, and therefore the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) agreed with it. If the hon. member had forgotten, he should look up the report of the Select Committee on Education in 1908. He was glad to see he had got it, and therefore he had willingly forgotten it. (Opposition cheers.) They had had differences of opinion, of course they had had differences of opinion. They had come out with a unanimous report, because they recognised what the result would be if they had not come out with a unanimous report. They had troubles in 1905 and 1908 on that very question, and they would probably have them again in South Africa in different degrees and cases; but in the old Cape Parliament they had recognised that where the two races existed, remained, or would remain, it was possible, and they had found it possible, to find a solution. Neither side got what it wanted, but they had arrived at a solution, and their education in the Cape Province had certainly done marvellously well. Proceeding, he said that he was not speaking without some slight knowledge of education in the Free State, and he had gone there to look at the existing condition of affairs. He went to see two schools, one of which, he was told, was a fair sample of what was going on in Bloemfontein. He had gone to see what was transpiring in that particular school, and be found that there was a bilingual medium, and that the result of that was that in a science lesson given by the teacher to the children—practically all the children understanding Dutch and English, the one exception not understanding Dutch—40 minutes were devoted to teaching it in the one language, and 20 minutes in repeating it in the other language. That existed right through the school. One-third of the time was lost in instruction, as a result of the bilingual medium. He had asked the principal, who he would like to point out was now a member of the Board of Examiners, what advantage he saw in instructing the children in two languages? He replied that if one taught a child in one language, the child is apt to repeat like a parrot, but if it were taught by means of the two languages, the child would understand the lesson better. He (Colonel Crewe) then said: “Would you not do even better with three languages?” The principal replied, “Yes.” Well, one might as well go to four languages, and so on, and there would be no end. He saw that the Hon. Minister of Justice had, in his argument, fallen into the same trap. He now came to the question of compulsion: and he asked: “Is there, or is there not, compulsion in the School Act and under Act 13 of 1910?” The hon. member proceeded to quote from the Act, of 1910, which clearly showed, he said, that there was compulsion. In section 21 of the Act of 1910, which dealt with the nature of the normal course, it was laid down that Dutch should be included. Clearly that was compulsion. Section 62 of the Act, laid down: “All examinations in English and Dutch as languages shall be conducted exclusively in the language which is the subject of examination. In all other subjects the questions of each paper shall be set in both English and Dutch, and the candidates shall have the right to answer such paper either for the one-half of the questions in English and the other half in Dutch, or exclusively in the one or other of the said languages, provided that in the latter case such candidate shall by supplementary examination, to be determined by the Council of Examiners, prove to the satisfaction of the Council that he is competent to give through the medium of tile other language the necessary instruction in the subject of every paper answered exclusively in the one language.” Section 71 stated: “In the case of any teacher appointed. … and who, but for failure to comply with the requirements of this Act as to the necessary knowledge of either Dutch or English, would have been entitled to a professional teacher’s certificate, under this Act, such teacher shall be allowed to pass a supplementary examination which shall be both oral and written, in such language, and such teacher upon passing such examination shall be entitled to be classed according to the class to which he would, but for such want of knowledge, in the opinion of the Council of Examiners, have been entitled. The hon. member added that he thought he had read enough of the clause to show anybody that there was compulsion. In the Act of 1905 there were again these bewildering clauses that ended up with these provisos and exceptions. There was no doubt that under the Act of 1908 there was compulsion, both as regards medium and as regards language. The former Director of Education in the Orange Free State (Mr. Gunn) summed it up thus: “That from the clauses and circulars it, was necessary for a child to learn both languages, except through ill-health or temporary residence in the country.” It was only that morning that, in the “Cape Times,” appeared a portion of a very interesting letter. It was a warning to any bilingual country to avoid as far as possible allowing the language question to damage the education question. That warning was not that of a man who was hostile to the French-Canadians. There was another question there bound up with it, and that was a religious struggle. A certain religious body had endeavoured to keep education from the children to a certain extent. It was the statement of a man who, at any rate, was a strong advocate of the French-Canadians. He was not in absolute opposition to any of his own people, but he put very firmly and squarely the condition of affairs in his country, and he drew attention to the very trouble which they were likely to have in this country if they considered only the language question. It was an extraordinary statement of a condition of affairs which he had seen with his own eyes. The whole question was not a contest between the English-speaking and the French-speaking people. But he would go no further. A statement that he wished the House to notice was that made by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), on August 20th of this year. Speaking at Victoria West, he said: “I am not going to say whether the Orange Free State Education Act is right or wrong, because I have not studied it sufficiently.” Well, he (Colonel Crewe) hoped that the right hon. gentleman, who had long been a very prominent figure in the country, had since studied the conditions of the Education Act. He went on to say in that speech: “I am not certain that all the people who have criticised it have understood it.” Well, he did not know this— that the people who criticised it most seriously were the people of the Orange Free State, who had suffered from it most. Mr. Merriman further said: “It is quite sufficient for them-to shout about Hertzogism and try to create racial and party feeling.” He (Colonel Crewe) hoped he had not fallen into that error, because he did not desire to have the question of education considered from any other standpoint than that of the benefit of both the peoples in the country. What did his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) go on to say? He said: “I am perfectly sure it has been taken up by General Hertzog after careful study, and he would be the last man in the world to force on any particular section of the people any scheme of his own which he did not consider fair to them.” Well, that was a tribute to one who had studied the question. He then said: “If you take a strong and firm man, who has done something which you think is wrong—and it may be wrong—and you want to get him to alter it, would you kick his shins or pull his nose? No, you would argue with him, and wait until a full and free discussion could be had, and then if there was anything wrong with it, then would be the time to alter it.” Well, they had taken the advice of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). They had come there for full and free discussion, in the hope that they might, get it altered. They had not come there with their hats in their hands, for they had come with what they considered the inalienable right that every child should have the right to be instructed in the tongue chosen by the parent. Their experience was that the parent was the person best capable of judging. It was of no use quibbling over details in the slightest. He had endeavoured to leave them out. It was of no use to say if they had this exemption, or that, everything would be all right. The point was that there was great trouble, and they had come to the House to say to the Prime Minister that he made a statement which enunciated his policy of equality of opportunity, no compulsion and distinction in the mother tongue. If that policy was carried out, as he enunciated it, and in the spirit of the Act of Union, he would have the support of both sides of the House. If he carried out his promise of no compulsion, they would be satisfied. That speech was made on July 13th. He (Colonel Crewe) knew of nothing he had done to that until the other day, when this question was pending, he summoned a Conference of the Directors of Education. That was a considerable period since the speech had been made, and he wanted to know now not only that he had a policy, but if he proposed to carry out that policy so that it would be fair to both languages and both nations. (Cheers.)

said he had to confess that he rather sympathised with the hon. member (Colonel Crewe), who commenced his speech very apologetically, and had found himself in a very great dilemma, and wanted them to Say whether he should go on with the motion or not. (Government laughter.) It seemed that he found that during the elections others made very strong statements, and came to the House now, and had adopted very different tones. He had to say his hon. friend (Colonel Crewe) kept on to his satisfaction right through his speech, and his only criticism was that it came a bit late in the day. If that tone had been adopted at the time of the General Election, there would have been something in it, but now be came and practically told the House that if he had not been twitted by the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sauer) that after September 15 nothing more would have been heard, he would not have troubled the House. Well, he (Mr. Malian) rose for the purpose of attempting to raise the debate a little higher than of mere election, or aftermath of the election, and if there was one point in connection with that matter and discussion of it in the past that he hoped would not be repeated, it was that they had bad too much agitation and too little education in it. Today he heard for the first time from the mover that the children had to be considered, and that the matter must be looked at from an educational point of view. During the elections that was a note that was never sounded. (Opposition dissent and Ministerial cheers.) If that note was continued during that debate, he felt confident that it would have an educative effect on the public generally, and would serve a good purpose. This was a question which very easily could lead to bitterness and to Strong views being expressed, for it touched very closely on the racial question, which had led to great difficulties in the past. He thought the example set by the mover in the moderation which he had shown should be followed by other speakers, and he hoped that he (Mr. Malan) would maintain that tone. (Cheers.) He regretted that the motion had been introduced. He regretted it from the Constitutional point of view. He fully admitted that from the Constitutional point of view the motion was in order, and if that were not so he felt confident that Mr. Speaker would have ruled it out of order. The Act of Union gave the House the right to discuss matters of that kind, but he would point out that Article 85, sub-section 3, with regard to education, was arrived at only after a considerable amount of discussion and difficulty, and probably we would not have had Union in the form in which we had it to-day if that had not been agreed to. If that were the understanding at the time if that were the basis on which men were led to vote and to give their assent to this document, then it was a matter of serious consideration before they lightly tampered with it, on a matter of pin-pricks small matters violated that understanding. If it were a matter of vital importance, then he said, “Certainly, the interests of the Union as a whole should Prevail.” But that was an instrument that must be used with caution and discretion. Another reason why he regretted that the motion had been introduced was thos—that at the beginning of Union, when we were only just starting the machinery, if they interfered with the Provinces, the day might come when the Provinces—especially the smaller ones—might feel that a right which was given under the Constitution was being interfered with. (Ministerial Cheers.) They had had the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) and other hon. members declaring against centralisation and the taking a Way of powers from the Provinces. What did they find them doing now? Laying down the broad principle that the Provinces had absolutely no rights. (Opposition dissent and Ministerial cheers.) There was another reason why he thought it would have been wiser not to have introduced the motion—that was that the questions of language and race were so intimately connected. The right hon. member for Albany (Dr. Jameson), shortly after the result of the Convention was published, made a speech in which he said that before the Convention sat he did not understand what the language question meant, but that after listening to ex-Presidents Reitz and Steyn, he saw the intimate connection (between language and race, and when his eyes were opened to that fact the right hon. gentleman said, “It is time for me to reconsider my views.” And he did. He (Mr. Malan) quoted that as a case in point—as an acknowledgment that when you deal with the question of language you are also dealing with a large question— with the question of race. Under the South Africa Act there were two principles dealing with equality of race. One was “one vote, one value,” and the other “equal opportunity for both languages.” (Cheers.)

And compulsion for none.

I am coming to that question by and bye. The language clause, proceeded the hon. member, was much more than a sentiment to them. He thought he heard the echo of a speech by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick), in which he quibbled and tried to explain away the meaning of that clause. If that were the spirit in which they were going to approach a question of that kind, he (Mr. Malan) did not know what language meant. The documents of the National Convention would soon be published, and it would then be found that what was now article 137 of the Act was settled in the first week, and it was perfectly understood that if no settlement had been come to on that clause, there would have been no Union. (Ministerial cheers.) For any member lightly to deal with it—(Ministerial cheers)—seemed to him to be taking a very grave responsibility. Let them honestly accept article 137 as it stood. The principles were laid down at the National Convention once and for all. He hoped that they were doing what practical men had to do under the same circumstances, and apply the principles of article 137. And they surely need not get heated about that. It was really a matter of seeing what was practicable. He was pleased when he saw the hon. member the mover of the motion try for once, at the start of his speech, to bring it down to a practical level. But he forgot about it later on. He started and read letters and speeches and election speeches, and all that sort of thing. His own resolution showed no way-out. They were excellent speeches, he must say—(laughter)—but did they lead anywhere now? (Laughter) And they could not have led anywhere at the time, because there was no Provincial Council to deal with the question.

There is one now.

I am coming to that. Well, article 137 laid down equality for “both,” not “either.” A good many people mead it “either.” (Hear, ear, and Government laughter.) During the election it was read one way, but when it came to interpretation it was read in another. He did not know if this was an aftermath of the General Election; at any rate, it read that both the English and Dutch languages should be the official languages in the Union, should be on a footing of equality, and should enjoy equal rights and privileges. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear those “hear, hears” from the other side. Very well, they had accented the principle, and now they had to go further and see that these principles were applied to the Union. (Hear, hear.) He said that the resolution of the hon. member for East London threw stones at the Orange Free State Acts, and nothing more. (Hear, hear.) He did not suggest any way out. He did not say where this inequality was.

The Government.

No; the policy of the Government has been laid down by the Hon. the Prime Minister. Continuing, he said that one big point made by the hon. member was that regarding the views of the parents. He (the speaker) was also for the rights of the parents. But he did not think it would be wise for the ignorant parents of children to decide upon the syllabus for the B.A. Examination. Nor would it be wise to go to the parents of the children in regard to the qualifications of higher-grade teachers. (Hear, hear.)

Or any grade of teachers.

Or of any grade. (Hear, hear.) Is that what the hon. member was feeling? (Ministerial laughter.) Continuing, he said that apparently the language clause was too strong for the hon. member in the clear atmosphere of the House, so he directed himself more particularly to the Teachers’ Act of 1910. Never mind about the Act of 1910. That was not the finish of it by any means. The speaker went on to say that under the Act a Commission was appointed, and he furnished the House with the names of those who constituted the Commission. They had made an inquiry to the best of their ability, and they had furnished the Government with a report. He did not know whether the report had anything to do with that discussion; but in the papers he had seen a great deal about this matter and this report, and the people on the press at Johannesburg had been writing themselves blue in the face about the matter. (Laughter.) But there was another clause in that same Act of the Free State—clause 112—which distinctly said that if a teacher felt aggrieved, he could appeal to the Director-General of Education, and in case the Director-General of Education disagreed with the finding of the Commission, the final say was left with the Governor. So that the matter was really at an intermediate stage, and the hon. member should have exhausted all the possible remedies before coming to that House. Before they came to that House, they must not only exhaust all legal but all ordinary remedies provided in the Act of Parliament itself. He had no doubt that before long this matter would be properly settled, and to the satisfaction of all. In July the Hon. the Prime Minister laid down the policy of the Government, and laid down the three principles, so far as medium of instruction, equality of opportunity to learn both languages, and no compulsion, was concerned. That was before Parliament, and they could not possibly deal with the matter then. They had to wait till such an opportunity presented itself. What had the Government done in the meantime to give effect to its policy? On October 15 he the speaker) addressed a letter to the Administrator of the Orange Free State asking him to give an explanation, an authoritative explanation, as to the working of the Education Act in that Province. He got what he wanted through the Administrator. Well, he was not going to trouble the House by reading the full report of the Director of Education of the Free State, but he would read a part of it and he might say that the report and the correspondence had been printed, and would be laid on the table of the House. In chapter 3 of his report, under the head, “Exemption from language and medium,” the Orange Free State Director of Education said: “With reference to the question of exemptions, it should be noted that these are of two distinct kinds: (a) Exemption from either language as a language; (b) exemption from either language as a medium. Exemption from the second language as such can be obtained if application to the effect is made in writing by a parent to the Director of Education. As to exemption from either language as medium, the law expressly provides that, up to and including Standard IV., every child shall be instructed solely through the language best known by such child. The second language may up to this stage, only be used, if no exception is taken by the parent to its gradual introduction as an auxiliary medium. Beyond Standard IV. any child may be granted exemption from the one or the other language as a medium at the request of the parent. It is perfectly dear, therefore, that all the School Act, as I read it, aims at is to equip the future citizens of the State for the business of life by: (a) Enabling every pupil to receive all his instruction practically from start to finish, through the medium of the home language; and (b) by extending to all pupils alike equal facilities for acquiring as much knowledge of the second language as will be found essential under the new conditions. South Africa is a bilingual country; English and Dutch are official languages. These two languages must, therefore, in the Government schools at least, enjoy absolute equality of treatment, both as subjects and as mediums of instruction. According to the department’s interpretation of the Act, there is: (a) Full recognition of South Africa as a bilingual country; (b) absolute equality of treatment of English and Dutch as languages and as mediums of instruction (o) perfect equality of opportunity of the two languages, without individual compulsion; and (d) instruction through the medium of the language best known by the pupil.” Continuing, Mr. Malan said that if the Free State Act infringed any of the principles laid down by the Prime Minister, he was against it so far, He had also got reports from Natal and the Transvaal; but, owing to the changing of offices by the Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape, he had not yet received a report from that official. The first object in obtaining these reports was to find out what was actually the case in the different Provinces. The second point was to ascertain in how far the actual practices in these Provinces were uniform with the principle laid down in Article 137. and the following step was to find out if they were not in accordance with the terms of the Article, or if they were not uniform, how they could be altered and improvised upon. But that was not what the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) wanted; he only wanted to throw stones at the Free State. He did not know whether the hon. member was a great expert in educational matters, as regarded the curriculum and syllabuses, and so on. At all events, the Government had thought it better to get the advice of their educational experts, and he had therefore addressed a letter to the several Administrators.

When?

On November 2, long before notice was given of this motion.

When you heard it coming on.

If I had listened to the election threats of the hon. member and his colleagues, of course, I could have seen it long ago. Proceeding, Mr. Malan said he had asked that the Directors of Education of the several Provinces should proceed to Cape Town to discuss the application of Article 137 to the different educational systems, not with a view to dictating to the Provinces, but with a view to getting a solution, if possible, of what they must all recognise as not a very easy matter. The Superintendents-General of Education met on November 15, and two days later he got their report. The Administrator of Natal declined to allow the Director of Education of that Province to sign any report or to make any report, excepting to him (the Administrator of Natal), while agreeing to allow him to take part in the Conference. The position the Administrator of Natal took up was that Article 85 gave him certain rights, and he insisted upon them. And he (the Administrator) was a member of the National Convention. So that he (Mr. Malan) was not prepared on this point to quarrel with the Administrator of Natal. Now, he would not read the whole of the reports to the House, but he would read the recommendations. First of all, the Directors of the Transvaal and of the Free State were in absolute agreement; they brought forward the same recommendations. As regarded the Superintendent-General of the Cape, he regretted to say that that official’s recommendations wore, to his mind, useless, because that official commenced his recommendations by saying that, “apart from the wording of Article 137,” whereas the very object of the discussion was how to apply Article 137. He would now read to the House the recommendations made by the Superintendent-General of Education for the Cape of Good Hope, and of the Directors of Education of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State with regard to the teaching of the English and Dutch languages and their use as media of instruction, recommendations which arose out of the recent Conference of the heads of the Education Departments of the Union. The Superintendent-General of the Cape said: “(1) Apart from the wording of Article 137 of the Act of Union it is desirable that all pupils should have equal opportunities of learning and using both Dutch and English, but no pupil should be compelled to learn and use both if the parent or guardian objects in writing (2) In the Cape Province, compliance with the desire here indicated should wherever possible be made at once by School Boards and the Education Department. (3) As, however, the providing of equal opportunities everywhere is a matter requiring considerable preliminary planning and time for the planning to take effect, no sudden general demand should be made; the attempt to do so would not end in success, and might arouse trouble and racial strife.” The following were the recommendations of the Directors of Education of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State: “No solution of the language difficulty will be permanent and satisfactory unless due account is taken of the following fundamental principles and general truths: (1) The principle of equality between the English and Dutch languages as laid down in section 137 of the South Africa Act, and interpreted so far as its educational implication is concerned to mean equality of opportunity as between English and Dutch, regarded both as subjects and as media of instruction. (2) The general desire of parents that their children should learn both languages well. (3) The principle that there should be neither direct nor indirect compulsion of any individual pupil in respect either of language or of medium, (4) The principle that instruction should, as far as possible, be given through the medium of the language best spoken and understood by the pupil. The first five of the following recommendations will, in our opinion, indicate how these principles may be put into practice. The sixth is, in our opinion, an essential if the principle of compulsion is not to be operative in respect of the teaching staff; (A) Medium.—(1) In order to ensure that there is no hindrance to educational progress and development, the Language best spoken and understood by the pupil shad be the medium of instruction as far as is practicable, and this language shall continue to be the medium of instruction unless the choice indicated in the next succeeding resolution is exercised. (2) The second language, either English or Dutch, as the case may be, may on the recommendation of the responsible local educational authority and with the approval of the Education Department, be gradually introduced as an additional medium of instruction, provided that this is in accordance with the wishes of the parents concerned. (3) The standard at which the second medium is to be introduced and the subjects to be taught through this medium in the various standards or classes shall be fixed by departmental or statutory regulations, on condition that provision is made in such regulations for ascertaining, and as far as possible complying, with the wishes of the parents concerned. (4) If in the administration of the provisions proposed in resolution (1) or resolution (2) it is found that there is a group of pupils which as regards either the first or the second medium or both requires different treatment from the rest of the pupils the needs of such a group shall as far as is practicable be met. (B) Language.—(5) Adequate provision for the teaching of English and Dutch shall be made in every public school, and each pupil shall be taught both languages, provided, that any pupil shall be exempted from instruction in either language if the parent expresses in writing a wish to this effect. (C) Teachers.—(6) No English-speaking teacher shall be penalised on account of a lack of knowledge of Dutch, and no Dutch-speaking teacher shall be penalised on account of a lack of knowledge of English, provided he is fulfilling satisfactorily the duties for which he was appointed.” Proceeding, the hon. gentleman said it was the duty of the House carefully to consider these recommendations and to find out in a calm, collected, and common-sense manner a way out of what certainly was a difficulty. He hoped that matter would be settled once for all, and that was why he hoped there would be no quibbling about the wording of Article 137. He trusted that would be left as settled at the National Convention, and that they would try now and find a practical solution of the difficulty that had arisen. If they approached the subject in that spirit he had not the slightest doubt that the commonsense of the House would prevail, and that the House would take a broad, national view as against a provincial view of the question. If the House adopted that attitude it would afford a solution which would not rob the present generation of the advantages of Union, nor pass over to their children the prejudices of their parents, and they would then succeed in realising the true ideal of the Union of South Africa. (Loud cheers.)

said he was sorry hon. members had not had an opportunity of reading the reports of the Directors of Education, which bad been referred to by, the Hon. the Minister for Education, because it was rather difficult to follow all the recommendations which had been read out.

said he forgot for the moment that members had not had copies of the reports, and he would beg leave to now lay the paper on the table.

Thank you; that will help those who have to speak on the subject to-morrow. (Laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said he wished the Hon. the Minister for Education had answered his direct question: “ Do you approve of the Free State Act?” It was quite true that it was a difficult subject that was before the House. It was quite true that language and race were mixed up. It was perfectly true, as everyone knew, that although it could not be said they were sitting exactly on a powder magazine, yet there was plenty of powder lying round, and the man who threw matches about and lit that powder would find that it would injure him. But he thought they could get through their difficulties by following the little piece of advice which was given to them at the opening of Parliament by the Prime Minister of Australia, when he said, “Talk it all out in Parliament.” And he (Sir Percy) thought they could talk it out perfectly straightly, leaving nothing out, and at the same time not giving offence. They wanted peace, but a very eminent bishop once said, “I am for peace—peace at any price, even at the price of war.” (Laughter.) Now he hoped they were not going to have difficulties as to the price of peace, but he thought they could speak out. This was the first opportunity they had had of discussing the matter face to face with the Minister of Justice, and of being able to get an authoritative explanation. As to the operation of the Orange Free State Act, if there was one thing that had been perfectly dear to him all the way through, it was that there was compulsion both on the children and on the teachers. He did not think it was worth while to go into all details and rake up all the things that were called scandalous, but there was one main fact, and that was that the people a large section of the people of South Africa, were profoundly dissatisfied, and in a state of turmoil which did not synchronise with an election, but at a time when the whole of South Africa was inspired in making a national effort to bring about a mutual understanding. But, in spite of that example, this discontent arose, and surely there must be some solid ground for this disturbance in South Africa, It threatened to go further and reopen the old divisions. And to a great many people this was considered as what they had had to pay for Ministerial concord, because hon. members who formed the present Government had made no secret of their convictions. They had given credit to the sincerity, honesty, and patriotism of the Hon. the Minister of Justice (General Hertzog), but they had a difference, and the majority of the members of the Ministry had told their personal friends of their difference, and it interested him to look round the House when the motion was moved, and to find that he was able to count eighteen hon. gentlemen on the other side (Ministerial side) who had expressed the opinion that things would be better otherwise. Well, were they going to divide now simply because there was this division of politics? He thought something could be done. He knew that the motion introduced was awkward. It would oblige a great many hon. members to vote against the Government, perhaps to vote with it, but one way or the other it Would make it awkward in their relations to the Government or their constituents. But they had to face these awkwardnesses, and they had to give their honest opinions there. It could not go on as it was. There was discontent, and they had got to remedy it. They in the Transvaal were threatened with a very similar experience. Be appealed to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, as was perfectly well known, and they met and averted the danger, and if they had not got the best possible system in the world, it was infinitely better than they would have had if they had attempted to settle it on the lines of party. He wanted to go back to the point, which his hon. friend had described as a quibble. He wanted to refer to the omission of the definite article. It would be seen in that clause that the Dutch and English languages should be the official languages. Now, he put it to the Minister of Justice, when this question was discussed, he (the Minister) and the speaker discussed it, and the object then was to frame the clause so that there would be no compulsion. He (the speaker) used the word optional either, not compulsory both. When they were drafting this clause the definite article was in, and he put it to him (the Minister of Justice) that if they put in that the Dutch and English should be the official languages of the Union, might it not be read that it would be compulsory for an employee to know and use both languages. His (the Minister’s reply was, “It might. We had better leave it out.” By an error of a typist that was introduced into the Convention, and when it was noticed and read out, the Minister of Justice got up and said: “I wish to make a correction. You must remove the definite article, because it might be construed as meaning the compulsory use of both languages, whereas we meant the optional use of either.” Now that was no quibble; it was a very serious matter. During the Convention, members of that body would recollect the little illustration that was brought up of the railway porter in Natal. Supposing the languages were made compulsory, somebody might go to a siding and demand his waybill in Dutch, knowing that that man could not speak Dutch. Somebody might go up-country, up to the Free State, and do the same thing wnowing that a man could not speak English. Were they going to place individuals at the mercy of anyone who came along to put the whole force of the Convention and the Constitution against him, and make him lose his position? That was one of the illustrations to show that there should be no compulsion. That was the meaning of this provision in the Constitution about Civil Servants, that they should not suffer by the mere want of knowledge of either of the languages. The hon. gentleman who had just spoken had said—quite rightly—that if they had threatened to use the power of the Central Parliament to take away, belittle or whittle down the rights given to the Provinces, there would have been no Union. He agreed with the hon. member, but he would like to say that if that interpretation of compulsory both languages had been put forward in the Convention there would have been no earthly chance of agreement: they could never have got the signatures; they could never have been Union, and everyone who had been there knew it. As he had said before, he believed the Hon. the Minister of Justice to be absolutely sincere throughout, single minded, and patriotic. He believed, however, that the hon. gentleman had made a mistake for which there was now an opportunity of making a correction. It was a question of point of view. The hon. gentleman was representing a strong majority, and he was a man of very strong convictions, but liable to mistakes, which the hon. member thought arose from an assumption of infallibility, which had brought down many great institutions. The cap of infallibility did not fit any human being or institution. If the hon. member could place himself in the position of those who were in the minority and see what their point ’of view was, he would, the hon. member was understood to say, get a different point of view. They had had the same experience in the Transvaal, who had lived there for 25 years, and they knew how much grief and trouble had been caused by the attitude which was now being taken up by the hon. gentleman. The hon. member advocated generosity in regard to the minority. Continuing, he said that most of them who had children had them learning both languages. There was not the slightest desire on their part to hinder the teaching, the learning, or the use of Dutch. And if it were attempted to hinder it, it would not only be a most wicked thing, but one of the most futile things to attempt. Everyone knew that one could not stamp out the language of a people, and, by attempting to do so, one only made a martyr of it and promoted its use. He would quote some words of the late President Kruger, and there were many wise words he said. He had once said, “You can lead my people, but you cannot drive them.” Now that was as true of the other side. There was coercion in that principle (compulsory bilingualism), from which he thought it was possible they could get away. It is no good saying that there should be exemption. Why should there be exemption to give one a right? There ought to be that right there. He thought it would work better if that right were there. They said that a teacher need not know Dutch or English, provided he carried out the duties for which he was appointed. What were the duties? Any teacher knew at the beginning of any term that he might be put in a bilingual school and have to teach both languages. Where would they get efficiency? The question of cost was a minor one in that matter, but it was no use talking about compulsion, because it would not work. They knew that a perfect bilingualist was a rare bird indeed. In that House there were a number of gentlemen who, from experience or opportunity, were equally proficient in both languages; but they were in the House, and were not earning £200 a year as teachers, and they would not do it as teachers. The hon. member went on to say that, behind it all, there was in the minds of a large number of people that it was not fair play which was wanted, and that the efficiency of education, had to be subordinated to the propagation of the language interest. That was the suspicion in the minds of many, and it was best for his hon. friends to hear it direct, rather than to read it in the papers. It could always be equality if they removed that compulsion, if they came down to the basis they took in the National Convention, and gave equality of opportunity —freedom in that sense—but no equality of compulsion. So far as efficiency was concerned, wherever they had the bilingual medium, they were giving their people change for 10s. instead of a sovereign. That was all they were getting out of it. He did not at all agree with the Minister for Justice that it was better for children to be taught through two languages, as they would learn better. They could not possibly learn under those circumstances. That, as an argument for educational efficiency, was absolutely impossible. The child must suffer. The people of South Africa would find that out. Even if they thought it was right; if they pursued that policy, it would not be successful. He knew that members opposite were not going to treat their children in that way. It was going to be the failure they believed it to be. The people in the Free State were making heavy sacrifices in the belief that it was an injustice, and that their children were being sacrificed. Children were not going to come out with some educational advantages at the end of the time set out, as the others instructed in either medium. Children taught through the dual medium were going to be as easily picked out in the future as were best quality sheep in a flock. Half-time never gave the same average as full time. The people of South Africa wanted efficiency, and it was no good turning out children who were half educated. On the question of the commercial value of the languages—he dealt, he hoped, fairly with the sentimental value, in which he absolutely agreed with the members of the other side. Every word he subscribed to. But there was something else. They could see, and they all showed they did, that there was a commercial value in English which appealed to a number of people here. They wanted it, and were paying for it, and were getting it. It was only in public places that somebody took offence when they said there was a commercial value that was not to be found in Dutch. It had been pointed out that the laws of the other Provinces did not comply with this. Take, for instance, the Transvaal Act, If they had been in the position of the Government, it would not have been possible for them (the Opposition) to introduce the Transval law, because there was a provision in that law which violated the spirit of the Convention, inasmuch as it made English compulsory after a certain standard. That was introduced by the Minister of the Interior (General Smuts), and he (Sir Percy) had to say that no wiser, or more patriotic, or farsighted measure had ever been introduced for a Dutchman by a Dutchman. He did the best possible to educate and equip the Dutch children from the commercial aspect. If it was put forward to-morrow that that provision should be swept away, they had the right to sweep it away, and he would offer no opposition to it. It was a wise thing for the Minister of the Interior to do, but it would not be wise for an Englishman to try to do it. Give them, in the Orange Free State, equality of opportunity, and no compulsion, and they would have conditions that would satisfy the people, and would have the backing of the whole of South Africa. (Applause.) He had noticed that a discussion about teachers often turned upon the imported teacher. It was always a difficult question. In other colonies they were certainly more advanced in population and education, and did not import their teachers. Of course, he thought they did extremely well if they did import a certain kind, and limited in number. But there was a feeling of prejudice” against the imported teacher, because he or she was an emigrant. He would like to know where it began. They were all emigrants, or children of emigrants. At one time it was a great distinction, and at all times it was a greater distinction. In case they despised the emigrants because they got like old port —better with years; because they could trace their ancestors back two or three, generations-—

Like cheese. (Laughter.)

No. You may like cheese; I like port. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said it did seem to be carried a good length when they found prejudice against a teacher be-, cause he was an immigrant. He mentioned that for a particular reason, and it affected the whole of the position. One hundred years ago there was a fair number of immigrants here, but among them there were no English. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) at a banquet the other night gave them a most interesting address, bidding the different sections of the community to remember what their brothers had done. He (Sir Percy) wished to carry that a, little step further to show how it would work. One hundred years ago there were, comparatively speaking, no Englishmen here; 50 years ago they were less than a quarter of the population; to-day they were one-half —and the tide was still flowing. Every country wanted immigrants, but it was not every country that could get them. Nothing could be more fatal than that an impression should get about that the Dutch people, when starting on Union, wished to force things. Immigrants would keep on coming and finding that this spirit of coercion existed they would be thrown into one camp. That was not desirable from any point of view and least of all from a Dutch point of view. It was a puzzle to realise another’s point of view, but at least we could try. “Put yourselves,” said Sir Percy, in conclusion, “in the position of the minority in the Free State Some of us struggled not to let this become a public question, and we did everything that mortal man could do to get a good understanding. We failed. I am not going to tell the hon. member that it is his fault, and I am not going to say that it is ours. But we may restart in the spirit of the Convention. Never mind about election speeches. Make an effort to realise each other’s point of view, and remember that this development is going on, and that nothing can stop it, and that the best thing for us to do is to make terms, to come together and pull it off together, instead of acting in rivalry.” (Loud cheers.)

who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said he was afraid that they had somewhat wandered from the motion before the House—not that he found any fault with that wandering. He went further, and said that if this wandering had taken place considerably’ earlier we would then not have been forced to discuss that matter at all in that House. The motion was for a judgment of disapproval of the Education Act of one of the Provinces—an Act for which, let him admit, he pleaded guilty, and was mainly responsible. But he shared his responsibility with 95 per cent., if not more, of the population of that Province. (Ministerial cheers.) And notwithstanding anything that had been said in the past, or that could be said to-day or to-morrow, that Act would be found to be—if not in full harmony with article 137 of the Constitution—the only Act in force at the present moment which could in any way be said to approach it. He had never stood by that Act as if it were like the Koran— dropped from Heaven—but they had made an honest attempt at meeting the requirements of the people of the late Orange River Colony. That was more than could be said of any Act of any of the other Provinces. So far from having tried to avoid any discussion of that subject in that House, or so far from having been sorry that the Opposition bad taken upon itself to enter that motion. He wished to extend his thanks to the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) for having moved it. (Hear, hear.) They had had months he might almost say years, of the greatest animosity shown through the public press, unfortunately from election platforms, and by private men off public platforms, whereby nothing but the greatest detriment had been done to that good feeling which was a condition precedent to this country ever becoming a country for Europeans worth living in. (Ministerial cheers.) But he had felt at the same time, and he had all along maintained it, that those who had spoken and written as they had, had done so—it was true, he had not the least doubt— with ulterior motives, but the great and vast majority because they had been misled. (Hear, hear.) He would like to know how many of the opponents of the measure had ever read it before probably the last fortnight—(Ministerial cheers)—or before the motion was tabled? He did not blame them, but if that were the case with members of Parliament he would like to know what must have been the state of things outside? The vast public never knew anything of that Act, and that was one of the reasons why he was so exceedingly glad that the question had been brought before the House. In the first place hon. members would have an opportunity of themselves inquiring what the contents of the Act were and of knowing what the views of others were upon that subject, and not being merely led by newspaper reports. But, above all, that was the public outside. We could not in South Africa continue to have the public in a state of excitement and of hatred, almost, of one against the other. They would have to take thread, and through that House they would have to see that the public was better informed, and if there was anything wrong in that Act to rectify it. He welcomed the resolution even if it only helped to reinstate truth to the position which she ought to have held all along. (Cheers.) Continuing, he said that he was pleased at the tone which had been adopted while this motion had been under discussion. So far the tone had been level and dignified, and he hoped that it would continue in that tone, and so be worthy of the House. (Hear hear) What he wished to do that afternoon was simply to lay before the House the facts, through the laws, as they were, so that they might no longer leave the public outside to depend upon the press for the rights and wrongs of the case. Now, he wished to say this before he went any further—that he certainly deprecated any interference by that House in any subject, and especially in that subject, which had been left by the National Convention especially to any of the Provinces. He said especially because, as it had already been stated, there was no subject in the Convention which was so well fought for by one of the smaller Provinces as this very question of education. And no matter what they did, or what opinions they expressed, or what measures were recommended, they would have to see that they did nothing to interfere with the authority of any of the Provinces. But let not hon. members think that he had been induced to say this, because he desired to maintain anything that was in the Free State Act. No; he was quite prepared—provided all the other Provinces were willing, he was quite prepared—that anything in the Free State Act which might be contrary to the spirit of the Union Act should be changed. (Ministerial cheers.) That was provided the other Provinces consented. He was exceedingly glad that he could see no reason why it should not be; and he was convinced that when he was finished what he intended to say there would even be lees objection even by those who were at present as suspicious as the hon. member for Pretoria East. Before entering upon his task of discussing the laws of the Free State, of which the House was asked to disapprove, he wanted, in the first place, to lay before that House three points, which he wished hon. members to remember. The first was this: that out of a total of 21,000 children in 1908 in the schools when that Act was passed, there were between 16,000 and 17,000 Dutch-speaking and between 3,000 and 4,000 English-speaking children. That was the first point.

Going to school?

Between 16,000 and 17,000 Dutch-speaking and between 3,000 and 4,000 English-speaking children. The second thing was this: That in the Free State there was—and was today—not one unilingual English-speaking class anywhere in the public schools. In other words, there was not a single class in a public School in the Free State where they had only English-speaking children whereas they had hundreds—at least, five hundred—classes in the Free State with nothing but Dutch-speaking children. (Hear, hear.) These other classes were partly Dutch and partly English. That was the second thing he wanted hon. members to remember. There were about 400 public schools in the Orange Free State. In not more than five did English-speaking children predominate. Those were the three facts that he wished hon. members to remember. Now he would take them into the historical part of this question. What was the position of the schools and education generally in the Orange Free State in 1908, when this School Act was passed, an Act which it is now sought to condemn. It was the object of the Government of that colony, after the war, the set intention of that Government to anglicise the Dutch child The hon. member for Cape Town shook his head. He (the speaker) repeated it, The express object with which the law of 1903 was introduced into the Orange Free State was that it meant to have the English language as the language for the Dutch child, that the English ideals should be substituted in the place of their national ideals—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—and that the Dutch-speaking child should be taught the greatness of British Imperial ideals. They may have been excellent ideals to attain, but they were to be attained only at the expense—(hear, hear)— at the cost of the sound education of the Dutch-speaking child. (Cheers.) Proceeding, General Hertzog read a letter written after the departure from this country of Lord Milner, by the then Director of Education—Mr. Sergeant—to Lord Milner, in which the writer said: “I was about to write to you this evening, when the post brought me your letter written on board ship… Before saying anything about its contents, I wish to congratulate you on the honour which I know you value solely as evidence that the King, the Government, and the whole nation endorse your policy in South Africa. This brings me at once to the question of camp schools. I send you with this letter a report of the educational work already accomplished in the refugee camps… I had the advantage of discussing with you the point of adequately supplying camps with the right sort of teaching material. We must appeal to England, and ask the sisters and daughters of those who have been fighting for the Empire to come and complete that part of the work which their male relatives were unable to accomplish. Our military policy has gathered the greater part of the male children into these camps, and I feel that the opportunity during the next year of getting them all to speak English is golden. What you want out here at present are women—thoroughly good teachers, with patriotic minds, who would come out … and put up with the inconveniences of camp life … in order that they might teach the children of the burghers our language and our ideals.” And the writer went on to say: “And eventually teach these children our great Imperial ideals.” These objects (continued General Hertzog) may have been very laudable, but they were to be reached at the expense of the child’s education. (Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of “No, no,”) Hon. members opposite said “No.” Well, what was the result of that letter? First of all, a law was made by which it was provided that any scholar should, at the request of his parent or guardian, receive instruction in the Dutch language. English should be taught compulsorily, but as to a child’s only language, it should only be taught to him as a favour. (Opposition cries of “No.”) Well, not perhaps as a favour, because the provision was there. Then it was provided that English should be the medium of instruction in schools. Later on, they heard of that great sacred principle in education that the child must be taught through his mother tongue. It was so sacred that members of the Opposition in the Free State Parliament were sent to England to protest and to ask the interference of the British Government, because that principle was hot observed to the extent to which they thought they had a right to demand. That sacred principle was not a sacred principle at the time of which he was now speaking. Dater on, he would point out that it was not even a sacred principle at present under the various laws of the other Provinces. The result of the old legislation was that out of 30 or 35 school hours per week, three hours were given to the instruction of Dutch, and there were two hours during which it might be used as a medium. This was in a country where there were 16,000 Dutch speaking children as against 3,700 English-speaking children at school. That was what some people would call equality— (Ministerial laughter)—but he appealed to the hon. members opposite, he appealed to the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) whether that was a state of things which any responsible Ministry could allow to continue? The parents naturally did everything they could to have these things remedied, but they were in despair while the Grown Colony system of government lasted, and had to wait for Responsible Government to come. And now he wished to refer to a point mentioned by the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe). The hon. member had twitted him (General Hertzog) with having gone back again. He did not intend to refer to anything which was really personal, but this was of more than personal interest. The hon. member said that, in spite of signing a certain agreement in 1905, when Responsible Government came, another Act, containing other and different provisions, was introduced by him (General Hertzog). Yes, he did frame another Act. The agreement referred to was signed under Crown Colony Government at a time when nobody knew when Responsible Government was going to come. He thought, and he had always been under the impression that Responsible Government meant that the Government of the day had the right, with the aid of and through Parliament, to do absolutely anything that was necessary in the interests of the people they represented, and how it could be contended that he was bound by any agreement which he made under Crown Colony Government when he became a Minister under Responsible Government was to him a marvel. At the time when the agreement was signed, he happened to be one of five or seven delegates who approached the Governnor with Mr. Gunn, praying to get more rights for the Dutch language, and at the meeting, where the terms which were later on subscribed to were agreed upon, he said this to His Excellency the Governor: “After first having refused to give my consent to them, I shall sign them, but only under one condition, and that is that the moment that a fitting opportunity occurs I shall go and agitate against those conditions, because I consider them to be against the interests of the colony.” (Ministerial cheers.) The result was that the Governor turned to Mr. Gunn, and said: “I am sure that Mr. Gunn understands that these are only temporary conditions, and if, later on you feel that they should be abrogated, you will have the right to do so.” He was very sorry to have to say that the statements made by the hon. member for East London were based on the pamphlet that had recently been issued, a pamphlet which was simply brimful of mis-statements, of falsehoods, and of actual untruths. He regretted that Mr. Gunn, in his anxiety to adduce proofs of his bad faith, did not adhere to veracity, and did not have the manliness to admit that what he (General Hertzog) had told the House was the attitude he took up at the time the agreement alluded to was made. When Responsible Government was granted, the people of the Free State were insisting on the educational requirements of their children being met, and with that object in view a new Act was undertaken to be introduced. That Act was the School Act of 1908. That was the only Act against which all the agitation went on until a few months ago, when people thought they had discovered something else which they might also introduce into the agitation, namely, the Teachers Act. The agitators discovered the cause for which they had been fighting was one that could not bear investigation, and was one that had to be propped up by something more. He wished it to be clearly understood that what he had to say he did not say in a mood of acrimony against any man or any member of the House; but he could not help feeling that the manner in which the Jaw of 1908 had been abused outside Parliament was a disgrace, and it was so detrimental to the people of South Africa that he had felt compelled at times to use hard words. That Act of 1908 contained three sections only. He wished to go into those sections one by one, and he would like to know what hon. members could possibly find against those sections or the provisions thereof. Seeing, however, that It would take some time to go into them, he would now move the adjournment of the debate.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until the following day.

from G. Jones, a brass finisher, Salt River Railway Works.

from F. G. D. Ohlsson, blacksmith, Salt River Railway Works.

from W. Terry, brass finisher, Salt River Railway Works.

from G. E. Ellis, driller, Salt River Railway Works.

from H. A. de Melker, machinist, Salt River Railway Works.

from F. J. C. Schultz, labourer, Salt River Railway Works.

from W. G. Reed, labourer, Salt River Railway Works.

from J. Crawley, labourer, Salt River Railway Works.

from T. Foley, messenger at Government House.

from F. K. Donaldson, widow of the late D. Donaldson, Cape Town Highlanders.

from Henry Collop, late skilled labourer, Salt River Railway Works.

from W. H. Dymond, carpenter, Gape Government Railways.

from W. Philipps, labourer, Cape Government Railways.

from D. P. Bromfield, engine driver, South African Railways.

from George Kenniford, fitter, Salt River Railway Works.

from Charles Cave, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from David Paterson, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from W. W. Souter, fitter, Salt River Railway Works.

from G. E. Bridges, driller, Salt River Railway Works.

from John Walker, brass finisher, Salt River Railway Works.

from W. H. Taylor, teacher, Education Department.

from Maria Smuts, teacher, Education Department.

from R. L. Williams, Gape Government Railways.

from John McGregor, late employee of the Table Bay Harbour Board.

from Lucy Spears, widow of the late J. Spears’ a pensioner.

from George McGrath, late locomotive superintendent, Cape Government Railways.

as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and Superintendence of Refreshment Rooms, as follows:

First Report of the Select Committee, appointed by Orders of the House of Assembly, dated the 8th and 10th November, 1910, on Internal Arrangements and Superintendence of Refreshment Rooms, with power to confer with a Committee of the Senate, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Wessels, Fichardt, Neser, Colonel Crewe, Dr. Smartt, Messrs. Meyler, Quinn, The Minister of Public Works, Messrs. Krige and H. W. Sampson. Your Committee, having conferred with a Committee of the Senate, beg to report as follows: (1) With reference to the correspondence referred to them concerning the proposed presentation of a dock to the Parliament of the Union of South Africa by Mr. J. H. Overton, of Woodstock, England, your Committee regret that they are unable to recommend its acceptance; (2) with reference to the gifts graciously made to the Parliament of the Union of South Africa by His late Majesty King Edward VII, your Committee recommend that these be placed in a glass cabinet in the Houses of Parliament building in a place to be selected by Mr. President and Mr. Speaker.

stated that unless notice of objection to the report was given at the next sitting of the House the report would be considered as adopted.

moved, seconded by Mr. VAN EERDEN: That the Select Committee on Public Accounts consist of thirteen members, and that Mr. Merriman and Dr. Smartt be members of the Committee.

Agreed to.

moved, seconded by Mr. VAN BEDEN: That from and after Monday, the 28th instant, the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m., and resume at 8 o’clock p.m., on Mondays and Wednesdays. He moved this because the House had been sitting for three weeks without making substantial progress. If the present mode of procedure were to continue it would take a very long time before anything had been accomplished. The Government, however, was bound to submit a large number of urgent measures.

Agreed to.

moved, seconded by Mr. VAN EEDEN: That from and after Thursday, the first proximo, Thursday be an Order Day, Government business to have precedence, such precedence, however, for the first proximo, to have effect only after notices of question and motion, already placed on the Order Paper for that day, have been disposed of.

Agreed to.

rose amid Ministerial cheers, to continue the debate. “Before proceeding this afternoon with the subject directly under discussion, namely, the Act of 1908,” said the speaker, “I just want to refer back to an incident in yesterday’s debate, as far as I am personally concerned in my reference to a certain gentleman of previous high standing in South Africa. I wish to say this, that if there is any man desirous of keeping the tone of the debate free from any personal element, it is myself; but the hon. gentleman opposite must understand that when a point is raised, which is a serious personal imputation upon me, and in the second place a means of thereby furnishing a basis of justification for the motion before the House, I cannot do otherwise but defend myself here. (Ministerial cheers.) They certainly cannot expect me to go outside of this House to refute the statements. I want to say this, sir, whatever I said yesterday—and unfortunately I shall have to allude to that subject, and that gentleman, this afternoon—it must be Well understood I am prepared to say out of the House to Mr. Gunn or any man representing him.” Continuing, the hon. member said that he wished, in going over the School Act of 1908—after having shown the history of things which led up to the passing of that Act—to go over the provisions of that Act as contained in the three sections 14, 15, and 16. In the first place, section 14 did not really come into the matter, but it would be necessary for him to quote it so as to show the real intention of the Legislature at the time the Act was adopted, and to see whether or not it was intended to carry out what had been suggested by hon. members on the other side. It said: “It shall be the duty of the principal teacher of each primary or secondary public school to provide for and enforce the equal treatment as much as possible of the English and Dutch language in such school in order to ensure the proficiency of the children in each of these languages.” He repeated “In order to ensure the proficiency of the children in each of these languages.” With regard to this section, he might just say that the words “as far as possible” were introduced for this reason. It was futile at the time, and even at this moment, to expect that this could be done at any school in South Africa, with the exception of very few, for the simple reason that the majority of the teachers in the schools were not competent to teach or even to speak in any degree both languages; and he might say this that in the whole of the Orange Free State there were not twelve teachers who spoke Dutch and could not speak English. But there were hundreds, and he might say this, that in every school a half, and more than a half, would be found were teachers who spoke nothing but English, and knew not a word of Dutch. It was for that reason that it was necessary that such words as “as far as possible” should be introduced. He now came to section 15 in the Act. This section dealt with all classes under and including Standard IV.—from the Kindergarten to the end of Standard IV.—and he might say that this was the section against which all the attacks had been levelled. What did that section say? It first said: “Save and except in the teaching of any foreign language, English and Dutch shall be the sole and equal medium of instruction in every public school.” That was in order to give the opportunity of having a foreign language like French or German taught, if the teacher could, through the medium of that language. But, then, it established the equality of the two languages. It laid down: “Every child up to and including Standard IV. shall be instructed in every subject through the language best spoken and understood by such child.” That was the principle of the whole law: that the English child shall be taught in English up to and including Standard IV., and the Dutch child shall be instructed in Dutch up to and including Standard IV. But now came another point: “And the language which is not the principal medium of instruction for such child shall by gradual increase, and as much as is consistent with the age and intelligence of such child, be used and resorted to as a subsidiary medium.” He had asked this House to remember three facts, and one was that in the whole of the Orange Free State of to-day there was not, and is not at this moment, a single unilingual-speaking class. This clause and this proviso dealt with unilingual classes, and the second dealt with mixed classes. Why was this section inserted in the clause? As stated by him the day previous there were 500 and more classes in the Free State where they bad nothing but purely Dutch-speaking children. (Ministerial applause.) The final compulsory stage for education in the Free State was at the end of the Fourth Standard. Now, from all of those children at school 70 per cent, were children who never went further than Standard IV. or V.; but an exceedingly large percentage, certainly not under 30 per cent., left school immediately the compulsory standard had been reached, and when he sat down to draft this law the first question that arose was: Are these children expected to know some English when they leave school, or not? And, in that, he might say that he agreed with his friend the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) that it certainly was necessary, and everyone in the Free State had held to that principle that every child should know the English language. But he felt that to compel a child to learn the English language for one year only would certainly leave him at the end of the Fourth Standard not very well equipped. But they felt it was a sound principle that by gradually using either language as a medium and increasing its use to apply it in the schools, so that by beginning the child with English as a medium he would be in a position at the end of Standard IV. to learn a great deal more than it would under other circumstances. Certainly no hon. member on the other side of the House could find fault with the Dutch child. They maintained it to be an exceedingly healthy principle, and sound educationally. He bad no doubt they would. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), for instance—he was one who had held up the Transvaal Act as a model law—must admit that the same principle he found laid down in the Transvaal law held good. In the Transvaal law the English language must be used exactly as provided in his (General Hertzog’s) law; but with this difference, that in the Free State Act it applied equally both to English and Dutch; in the Transvaal law it applied only to English. (Hear, hear.) The principle was sound, and it had been hailed with welcome by members. He thought his hon. friend for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) had likewise expressed himself as charmed with it. (Laughter.) He (Sir Percy) asked: What about compulsion?

No; I said, remove the compulsion.

Right. I assure the hon. members that if they are prepared to do likewise in the other Provinces I shall use my best endeavours to please them. (Ministerial laughter and hear, hear.) Continuing, he said he was pleased, but he wished to draw the attention of the House to it. In the meanwhile, where English was not the native language it was used as the medium of instruction, and would be gradually introduced, and beyond that course prescribed up to the Fourth Standard, it would be used as the medium. But the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) asked, what about compulsion? Not one English child in the Free State had ever been subjected to this compulsion, because no such child had existed. (Hear, hear.) There had never been a single unilingual class in the Free State, and to maintain this compulsion was simply using words without giving any basis. As he had already pointed out, the clause was included because he felt that those children should be assisted in the second language as much as possible, and the only thing that was compulsory so far as the English child was concerned was equality. The Free State Act enforced no compulsion on the English child. (Hear, bear.) He now came to the second section. “Where and whenever any class is composed partly of English and partly of Dutch-speaking children, both English and Dutch are, as far as possible, to be equal mediums of instruction for such schools.” A great deal of thunder had been levelled at that section. That which was called in the motion the compulsion of being taught through both languages, and was what the hon. member, the mover of the motion, complained of. He would ask the hon. member whether, apart from any theoretical principle that he might hold as to compulsion or no compulsion, he had for one moment considered the practical impossibility of doing without a mixed class in South Africa? He now came to the second fact which he asked to be remembered yesterday. It was this: He asked the House to remember that whereas there were over 400 schools in the Free State there were not five where the English-speaking children predominated. Let him say this before he went further, that according to the Act there was nothing to prevent the English child or the Dutch child being educated apart in different schools or in different classes, but at the time when the Act was drawn up it was never contemplated that that should be done. He had always held that no greater injury could be done to South Africa than to put the two sections of children in different camps—(hear, hear) —and by so doing, if not intensify, at any rate retain, the prejudices and antipathies of those children to one another. From a social point of view he had always been strongly against it, and he must say that he would always be strongly against it. He did not wish to thrust it down the throats of his English fellow South Africans, but he contended that he had the right, even when he made concessions to prejudice and sentiment, to uphold and maintain what he considered to be sound principles, and he would always hold that it would be extremely wrong to put the Dutch and English-speaking children in different camps. There was another fact to be considered. If they wanted different schools they must have different buildings, and if they wanted different classes they must have increased staff. As a Government they had to take things as they were. They had to take over the existing schools and those classes—mixed classes—and the question was to see that the Dutch child should have equal opportunities to learn his language, and to learn through his language, with the result that the section was laid down that, where and wherever any class was composed partly of English and partly of Dutch-speaking children, both English and Dutch should, as far as possible, be equal mediums of instruction for such schools. What did that mean? It meant that the teacher, when he taught a class, should use the English language, and should use the Dutch language according as to whether he was addressing the English or the Dutch-speaking children of the class. (Heat, hear.) The time and the method for the teacher, doing that had not been regulated by the law, but was left to the discretion of the teacher himself, and of the department. The hon. member for East London told the House yesterday that he happened to go into a school in Bloemfontein, where 40 minutes were used for the purpose of instruction through the medium of English, and 50 minutes Through the medium of Dutch. That was one method of teaching, but only one. There were other methods being applied as well. And what was the cause very often of a teacher following a certain method? It was the prejudice and the sentiment of the community amongst which he found himself. (Hear, hear.) The school to which the hon. member for East London had referred us was one of the best primary schools in the Free State. He (General Hertzog) had had the opportunity of having one of his boys educated there, and was, therefore, in a very good position to judge as to the standing of the school, and he could tell the House that although the school put the law into practice 14 days after it came into force, there had never been a single complaint from it about the Act and its working. (Cheers.) Why? How could that be so in the heart of Bloemfontein? It was because of the loyalty and the sense of the Englishmen at the head of the school. (Hear, hear.) He wished the House to understand that the mixed class was a thing they could not get away from. And let him inform the House of what occurred, when 52 of the most prominent citizens representing the English-speaking section of the Free State, met him on the very question. They wanted the very thing which, as he understood from the speeches made yesterday, hon. members sitting opposite desired, namely, that the question should be left to the discretion of the parent. He was glad to see the hon. member for East London saying, “That is so.” He was positive that the hon. member would admit that he had never properly regarded that side of the question. Naturally, the first question he put to the deputation—and he now put it to the hon. member—was, “You want to leave it to the discretion of the parents. How many parents are to decide whether both mediums shall be used or not, or which medium shall be used?” They naturally said, “The majority.” (Laughter, and cries of “No, no.”) Well, he wanted to point out that his answer was very simple. He said that they had five schools in the Free State where English predominated, and they had 50 or 60 other town schools where they were in the minority. Were they prepared to take the responsibility if, in those other 50 schools, the Dutch-speaking parents said that they wanted nothing but the Dutch medium, and one of the gentlemen jumped up, and said: “No, I don’t want that. I am satisfied with the law as it is.”

No, no.

was understood to say that he hoped the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) would, in view of what he had said, be a little more satisfied with the law.

Not one bit.

Well, sir, it only shows how strongly a prejudice becomes when once it takes root and grows into conviction. Proceeding, he said that they had to face facts. They had numbers of mixed schools all over the country. They could not get away from it. They could not establish in a small village a school for five English children, and they could not in a big English centre have a school for five Dutch-speaking children. Then what were they to do? Surely the only alternative was to have one medium. Well, taking for granted that the hon. members opposite were correct in saying that they could do away in time with the mixed, classes, and that it was advisable to get away from it, that might be a very good idea according to others to strive after, but in the Free State, when this law was introduced, it was not attained, and would not be attained until and unless Parliament voted another half-million pounds necessary for schools and buildings and to give the necessary start. Under these circumstances he submitted that there was nothing in this law to which the slightest objection could be taken. But he submitted more. He submitted that this was the only law which made the least attempt at giving equality and freedom. But the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) yesterday raised what he thought to be a very serious accusation against him that he (the speaker) had said: “Let the English children stop up their ears if they were not prepared to listen to Dutch. Yes, he did say that, and he was now going to state the circumstances under which he said it, and he might say that under the same circumstances there would be no other course for him but to say it again. What did they do? The position was this. When they had English and Dutch children sitting next to one another they objected, and said that while they spoke to the Dutch child they forced the English child to listen. (Ministerial laughter.) That was compulsory medium. (Renewed Ministerial laughter.) He asked when people reached that stage of unreasonableness, when they had before them a class composed of 12 English and 12 Dutch children, and they said they could not allow Dutch to be spoken to the Dutch children—(Opposition cries of “No, no,” and Ministerial cheers)—and they knew that there was no provision for having the English Children apart, then surely there were only two courses. The one was to send the English children out of the room whilst Dutch was being spoken, or follow the other alternative of stopping the children’s ears. Gentlemen complained in a tone that made one believe that the effect on the English child whilst Dutch was being Spoken would vitiate their intelligence. The hon. member for Pretoria East said that that was nonsense.

Excuse me, sir, I did not say so.

I thank you. I misunderstood the hon. member. Proceeding, he said they must understand the position in the Free State as it was to-day. They had these mixed classes, and he wished to ask the hon. member for Pretoria East when he had a class consisting of two sections of English and Dutch children what was he to do?

Behave like a responsible Minister

I am very sorry that hon. members get out of their tampers, and I shall leave them very severely alone. Proceeding, he said he regretted exceedingly that there were some men who at the moment that argument began to tell— (Ministerial cheers.)

You asked me a question, and I answered it.

said that he would now go on to refer to that model law which was so appreciated by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) and others. Let him say here that he did not wish to say anything with regard to that Act—as a Transvaal Act. He had nothing against that. He thought that every colony had taken the best law under the circumstances. But they were dealing with the future, and with the Act under Union, and from the Union point of view; and yet they came and singled out the Orange Free State Act because of that compulsion; and he really wished to point out the inconsistency of that position. Let him take the Transvaal Act. Section 50 of that stated that the medium of instruction of the lower standards of any school, should—and he impressed upon the “should”—fee the native language of the pupil. That was undoubtedly educationally sound, but it was followed by something else: “it shall be continued to be used for such time as may he required for the educational progress and development of the pupil …” A great educational authority had lately been got out from England, supported by the money of the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick), and he, who was the organiser of the private schools in the Free State, had declared that—

I do not even know him.

I did not say he did.

I never spent a penny in my life in supporting anyone—((Laughter.)

I may only say this: that I see the hon. member has promised, or given, £50 to support a private school in Pretoria.

In Harrismith.

Then I am right after all, because that gentleman was the organiser of the private schools in the Free State. It does seem as if some people do not like their own actions. I am very sorry. (Laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said that that authority had stated that his opinion was that after the third grade, or after leaving the kindergarten, the child could easily be educated in the other language. Of course, a great many did not relish that expression of opinion, and that authority had been a rather uncomfortable one for them; but he (the hon. member) quoted that there to show that that line might mean that according to the Transvaal Act the Director of Education could say in Grade 2 or Grade 3 to a child: “You are quite sufficiently advanced now to be taught through the medium of English.” Not through the medium of Dutch. Oh no, no! The hon. member proceeded to quote further from the Act in question as follows: “When English is not the native language, its use as the medium of instruction shall be gradually introduced, and on the completion of the course (the Third Standard), it shall be used.” Might foe ask the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) why he had not included the Transvaal Act? That question might be rather unfair, so he would rather put it so: he would rather ask him why had he not left the Free State Act out of his motion, and introduced the Transvaal, the Cape, and the Natal Acts? Let them take the Cape law. The hon. member was understood to quote from clause (a) of the 1865 Act, to the effect that the instruction during the Ordinary school hours should be given through the medium of the English language. Clause 3 stated that the instruction during the ordinary school hours should be given through the medium of the English language.

That’s the 1865 Act, half a century ago.

continuing, quoted from the Act in so far as it dealt with the farming population. It set forth: “That the instruction during the school hours shall, as far as practicable, be given through the medium of the English language.” Now he came to a later Proclamation — in 1:882: “So much of the school regulations contained in the schedule of the Education Act of 1865 as provides that the instruction during the ordinary school hours shall be given through the English language only, is hereby repealed.” What was the fact? Would hon. members from the Cape Parliament for a moment consider how many subjects were given, and had ever been given, through the medium of Dutch? (Ministerial cheers.) He almost thought that the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) drew that section. (Laughter.) Another sub-section of this section 15 of the Free State Act, against which all the artillery of the press and the platform had been directed, was the following: “After Standard III., both English and Dutch shall be taught as languages to every child Now, the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) complained in his motion of the medium, he complained that the Act was in conflict with the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity, inasmuch as it compelled children to be taught through both mediums; but the hon. member did not say anything of the compulsion —the compulsion of having to learn the other language. He (General Hertzog) could very well see what the reason was. The hon. member’s attention had been drawn, no doubt, to a provision of an Act in the neighbouring Province, which read: “No pupil in a public school shall be promoted from any standard to a higher standard unless he shall have acquired such a knowledge of the English language as may be reasonably expected of him, and is making satisfactory progress in a knowledge of that language.” That section, he heard, was approved of by the hon. members opposite.

It is approved of by the Prime Minister.

And so do I approve of it; but have it extended to both sections of the children. (Ministerial cheers.) Proceeding, General Hertzog said that if there was any law which was against the very fundamental principles of sound education, it was a law which compelled a child to learn a foreign language in Standard I. and in the Kindergarten. There was certainly not a single educational authority of repute who would support that. Here they had it laid down that the poor Dutch child must begin in the lowest stage—in the Kindergarten. And then it was said there was no compulsion, and the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) declared it was a model law for the Union.

Who introduced it? (Opposition cheers.)

; Who passed it (Ministerial cheers.) I have nothing to do with either the passing or the use of it. This is a law of a Province, and under the circumstances of that Province, it may have been as well justified as our law in the Free State or any other law. The question was, he continued, whether this was to be held up as a model law for the Union by earnest men trying for a solution. Thon there was another provision which read: “Adequate provision for the teaching of the Dutch language shall be made in every public school, and that language shall be taught to every child in such school unless the parent of such child otherwise desires; provided that in the case of any child whose native language is not Dutch, the teaching of the Dutch language shall be taken at such time as is considered by the Director to be, on educational grounds, convenient.” An excellent provision indeed; but according to this law there were educational principles only for the English child; the Dutch child could be taught irrespective of educational grounds. A Dutch child must learn English and pass his examination in English in the kindergarten; but the English child may not learn Dutch until he had arrived at such a stage as the Director thought suitable. And this was equality. This was the law which upheld the principles of sound education for the Union. Reverting to the Free State Act, General Hertzog said it was unanimously adopted by the English as well as the Dutch representatives in the Councils of the Free State. And not only was it adopted unanimously, but those representatives protected that they would have it so, that is, was right that it should be so; and still this was being used and was really the starting point of the agitation against the Free State Act by a few and it was gradually taken to Johannesburg, where it caught fire and was retransplanted, and then supported in the Free State. Now, the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) had quoted from a speech made by Mr. Barlow. He wished to point out to the hon. member that in the Lower House of the Free State the Opposition was at one with the Government on the medium—Mr. Barlow included. Mr. Barlow called out, “You are giving an open door; we are at one with you.” But Mr. Barlow’s objection was against the English child being compelled to learn Dutch. The hon. member in his motion had made no complaint against compulsion as such. He (General Hertzog) thought that what he had done in discrediting and laying aside these evil prognostications, he only did what the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) would have done bad he been in his (the speaker’s) place. Exceptions were made to the provisions, which said that English and Dutch should be taught to every child. It had been said that the interpretation given to the exception clause by the Director of Education was against the law. He (General Hertzog) certainly did not consider that interpretation was against the law. It might be a little strained. (Opposition laughter and Ministerial cheers.) But by what right would that House have a protest entered on its records against an Act of the Free State, accepted by the unanimous consent of the British and Dutch speaking people in the Free State House? There was something more. This Act had been so interpreted, or had been put into force upon the interpretation of the Director of Education, for a considerable time past. What grievances had these hon. members? By what right did they come to that House and say, because they bad a certain interpretation of an Act, and although that Act was being interpreted in a different way and a reasonable way, they asked that House for a judgment of that Act? (Ministerial cheers.) He had never heard of anything more ridiculous. Let him say this—he knew that there were a great many people in this country who were trying constantly to force interpretations for no other reason than to get grievances. It was easy from the first day that the Act was put into operation. He thought, as far as these Acts were concerned, so far as the Free State Act was concerned, it would be very clearly seen that the provisions therein contained were of such a nature that they certainly observed equality. There was no one provision in that Act to which any man could point which had not observed equality to the utmost. (Ministerial cheers.) Consequently, where came in the charge of it being in conflict with section 137 of the Act of Union? As far as compulsion was concerned, let him say this to hon. members, that they might speak very glibly of being against compulsion from the platform and off the platform; but they could as little do without compulsion, as they could do without education. (Ministerial cheers.) Hon. members opposite had tried to make a great deal out of what the Premier had said, but they had already begun by interpreting his words as being against compulsion to mean that there must not be, and that there never would be, compulsion—as he (General Hertzog) had pointed out that afternoon—in the mixed classes, and so on. It was very clear that such an interpretation could only lead to one thing and that was the greatest absurdity. They would not have compulsion! Why, they compelled the child to: go to school; they compelled him to learn arithmetic and Latin. (Ministerial cheers.) All this he could understand outside, where the majority of people usually spoke through cent; but in that House, where they were trying to come to remarkable conclusions, they were not to use those shibboleths. (Ministerial cheers.) He had now done with the Act of 1908, and came to a different one—that was the Act of 1910, the School Act. Now, be wished to point out that the Teachers’ School and Classification Act undoubtedly was, in many respects, the logical sequence of the Act of 1908, complementing that Act. In the first place, it was felt that it was necessary that the teachers in the Free State should be better remunerated than they had been in the past. With that object in view, provisions were taken up in that Act to see that in future the teaching profession should be treated with consideration, and paid accordingly. It was the principle then, and he was only too sorry to say that it was a principle which obtained, he believed, in the majority of the other Provinces, that the teacher was not paid and remunerated according to his competency, and the work he did as a teacher; but he was remunerated in an arbitrary manner, according to the affection or esteem in which he was held by his inspector—(hear, hear)—or his Director of Education—(Voices: “Quite right”) —and in many instances according to the position or the place where he taught. (Hear, hear.) Now, in the first place, that Act tried to do away with all that favouritism; it was decided to try and do away with that gross injustice which meant that a teacher out on a farm with 40 children to teach—four classes—teaching five and twenty hours, got £120, while a teacher teaching for the same time, the same number of children at the institute at Grey College got £300 and more. It was a gross injustice perpetrated on the teacher and on the people outside in the country, who get only the refuse so far as teachers were concerned. But it also provided for the training of teachers. It was found necessary, undoubtedly, that if they wanted to instruct children properly in South Africa, in a satisfactory manner, the only thing they could do was to get bilingual teachers, properly equipped, and in order to do that certain provisions were inserted in that law. Other provisions were inserted, and he might here mention that a Commission, that the hon. member for East London would find very interesting, went into the question of paying the teachers according to competency. The most competent teacher for the mixed class was the bilingual teacher. Whatever men might say, they had all seen the calumny which had been heaped upon them, upon the bilingual teacher, and the South African teacher, and he would say that all these were gross falsehoods, that bilingual teachers did not deserve them, and that certainly so far as examinations were concerned, these had gone to show that they were equal, if not superior to any others in the colony. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, it was decided that teachers’ salaries should be increased. The first provision was that no teacher in the service should have his salary adversely affected by any provision of the law. (Hear, hear.) The second was that every teacher was to be graded, and that if he came into a grade which carried with it a larger salary than the one he was enjoying at the time, he was to get that salary. But there was another provision, and it was this: That the bilingual teacher, who knew both English and Dutch should have above that extra remuneration of 20 per cent., with the result that no teacher was affected so far as salary was concerned. Many, he hoped, would be beneficially affected. It was thus open to the unilingual teacher, for the moment, to learn the other language, English or Dutch So that he would be able to get the highest that was provided under the law. They had had the hon. member for East (London referring to the “Teachers’ Gazette,” wherein a lot had been mode about the grading of teachers. Let him say that the grading of teachers had nothing to do with the law. By that law the Board of Examiners was bound, and had to grade the teachers according to the grading provided. If this Board acted unwisely it still stood to be corrected by the Director of Education. But the Act had nothing to do with it— nothing. But let them tell the hon. gentleman that the provision of that law, before that law was published was printed, and a copy was sent to every member of the Teachers’ Association in the Free State, and they were asked to make recommendations. And those were accepted. They even went so far as to interview him, and were most pleased with the result of the interview, and what was more, were most pleased with the Act itself. (Hear, hear.) And it also happened—he did not know whether the hon. member for East London knew—that they presented him with an address. (Laughter.) He had it in his hand. (An HON. MEMBER: “We have heard all about it,” and laughter.) He said this so that people would not be misled, and say that they did not know. (Laughter.) It so happened, he might say, that the Act as it stood met with the unanimous approval of the teaching profession of the Free State—(hear, hear)—and they even went so far as to ask him to allow them to thank him personally. That was what he had got for having given them that Act. (Hear, hear.) Would the hon. member for East London tell him by what right he framed an indictment against the law which the people had approved of, and Still approved of? By what right did he speak in the name of the teachers? By what right did he presume to speak in their name? (Hear, hear.) Some champions were sometimes repudiated, and he should not be surprised to see the hon. member for East London, repudiated by the teachers. The hon. member referred to this Act as being in conflict with the Constitution. Why? Because, although he kept it carefully out of his motion that one of the reasons for it was because the Act of 1908 compelled the teaching of the other language. Yesterday he (Colonel Crewe), in order to support and prop up his weak arguments, referred to it, and said that on page 5 it was said that Dutch shall be one of the subjects on the curriculum. He would ask the hon. member whether, really, after what he had pointed out with regard to the Act of 1908, that was any argument, in view of course of the Transvaal Model Act. But there was one argument which the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) used that was really worth listening to It was when he said: “See, you actually ask that a teacher, in order to receive a professional certificate, shall know Dutch.” Well, perhaps it might be that the unilingual teacher of English was best. Let it be. But in what way did the provision of this law say that in order that a teacher might be taken into the service of this country, he must know Dutch; and in what way did it came in conflict with Article 137 of the Act of Union? For that reason, to say that a person was to know English to come into the service of the country was in conflict with Article 137 of the Act of Union. These were the arguments which had been held up against this law. He had put the provisions of this law before the House. With regard to the Teachers Act, it had no provisions in conflict with Article 137. He need not go further than that. But now he would come more directly to the motion. It would be noted that the motion before the House first laid down the charge and then tried to substantiate it by six different reasons. He would deal with them one by one. It was said that the provisions of the Act were in conflict with the principles of freedom, and with the principles of equality of opportunity as embodied in the South Africa Act, inasmuch as they compelled children to receive instruction through the medium of both English and Dutch. He had, he hoped, finally disposed of that fallacy. If he had to repeat it again—(cries of “No”)—according to this Act, if the English parent did not want his child to sit by while the Dutch was being taught Dutch, there was the door. Absolute freedom—there was the door.

Where’s the education?

The hon. member asks: “Where’s the education?” You want the subject to be given in that mixed class through the medium of English, and through the medium of English alone. (Cries of “No” and Ministerial applause.) Where is the education for the Dutch child. I hope that the unilingual attitude which was taken up by 22 representatives who met me in Bloemfontein is not going to be taken up in the House. When, eventually, they could not get out of it, and had to face their difficulties, they got up and cried, “We are here, and we don’t care what becomes of the Dutch; we are here to represent the English child only.” (Government applause.) Proceeding, he said he hoped the House was going to look facts in the face, and take count of them. They had in the Free State, as they had in the other Provinces, their mixed classes. They could not get away from them, The teacher could not speak two languages simultaneously, so he had to take one at a time, either English or Dutch. If they chose to have English, then they must give them a separate teacher or not send them to school at all, for if they did they would be subjected to the medium of English alone. The only alternative was to address first one child and then the other, and he did not see what good that could do.

You can’t have another teacher, I suppose. (Laughter.)

Really, if I had to do with people outside this House I could understand it, because there are many men whose comprehension is so exceedingly small; but when I have to do with the hon. member for Pretoria East, when I have been saying time after time unless you have different teachers and different schools you cannot do it—these are the conditions on which I argue; that if you have mixed teachers and different schools it can be done; but we have today that fact in this country. And this law is to do with an established system and facts. You do not have two teachers. Proceeding, he asked, did the hon. members mean that the Dutch children should have to remain at home? What other alternative had they but to follow what had been followed and laid down in the law—to use the two languages as of equal value, leaving it to the teacher to say whether he would address a mixed class for five minutes in English end 50 minutes in Dutch, or five in Dutch and 50 in English. It was left absolutely to his discretion. He did not know whether all the hon. members were, but some of them must have been educated in the Cape, and some of them must have been educated by teachers who were bilingual, and in classes where there were Dutch-speaking children. (Hear, hear.) Had not that been the method which had been adopted all through in South Africa—that when they had a bilingual class and the teacher knew both languages, he used those languages as mediums alternatively in order to bring up both classes abreast? And what this law laid down was nothing but what had been adopted by all competent teachers. Let him assure hon. members that when this discussion was at its height he received letters from the very best English teachers in the Free State who knew both languages, saying that they could not understand what all the hubbub was about, because it was the system they adopted, and they found they could not put in practise any other system in the mixed classes, with the best results. Those were facte, and one could not get away from them. As he had already said, he hoped the fallacy had now been sufficiently disposed of that both mediums were comp4ulsory in any school. They were compulsory in so far that the English-speaking child in the class must sit there while the Dutch child was being addressed: but, according to the law, there was nothing to compel him to listen, and it was for that reason he had said that, if necessary, he could stop up his ears with wax. The second ground of the charge was that it constituted an infringement on the rights of the parents. What were those rights? The hon. member for East London had unfortunately not taken the trouble to tell him what those rights were. Where they had a compulsory education system, where were the rights of the parents? Why did any State make compulsory education? Was it not because, in the first place, it was to the interests of the State that its citizens should be educated? (Hear, hear.) Education was not for the parent, but for the child. When the State said that the child or the citizen should have a certain mental and moral development in the form of education, the child must in consequence be sent to school, and surely it was for the State to say how that child was to be developed and educated. The hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagrarer) shook he head. That was a discovery the hon. member had made only since the Free State Act was introduced. Would the hon. member for Cape Town point out to him any law or any country in the world where the syllabus, the curriculum, was laid down by the parent? Even in his native Scotland—no, he begged the hon. member’s pardon—(laughter)—even in his native England, he was never asked whether he would learn arithmetic, or reading, or geography, or history, nor was his father asked. Why, the moment they came to South Africa, should that be an essential right of the parent, which could not be violated without violating the Constitution? He had always thought that England was a free country, but now hon. members came and told him no, that was not freedom. Well, it was domestic slavery, he supposed. They said, like all good Englishmen who came out to South Africa, good democrats as they were, that they were desirous of having a free country—an absolutely free country. Could anybody tell him what right the parent had to insist upon anything except through Parliament? What right had the parent to insist upon the medium of education to take the question as an example? He had already pointed out to hon. members that if that principle was introduced, and if the selection of the medium was left to the parents, they would very soon find a state of affairs in South Africa which they would be very sorry they had ever introduced. He found the grounds of the charge improved as they went on. The motion next said that the Acts operate unfairly against certain sections of the teaching staff. Now, he would ask, what had any of the provisions affecting the teaching staff to do either with the principles of freedom or with the principles of equality or opportunity for South Africa? Every State had the right, and every State laid down, what qualifications its teachers should possess, and in a bilingual country, where bilingual teachers were required, it was necessary that the qualifications of the teachers should be consistent with that requirement. The motion next said the provisions of the Act made it impossible to obtain an adequate number of efficient teachers. The hon. member for East London yesterday said that about 50 per cent, of the Transvaal or Free State teachers were inefficient—

dissented.

said the bon, member quoted figures presumably in support of his arguments, and as his arguments were concerned with the Free State, he (General Hertzog) presumed he employed Free State figures.

said the hon. member knew perfectly well that he quoted from the report of the Director of Education of the Transvaal when quoting those figures, and he was particularly careful to say so. He would be glad if the hon. member would argue from what he (Colonel Crewe) had said, and not from what he had not said.

I stand corrected. Continuing, the hon. member said the charge, or the ground for the charge, was that the provisions of the law or laws of the Free State made it impossible to obtain an adequate number of efficient teachers. The hon. member for East London yesterday referred to the number of matriculated teachers as really being inadequate. Let him point out to the hon. member the number of adequate teachers in the Cape Colony would, according to that assumption, be 12½ per cent. There were 12½ per cent. of teachers in the Cape Colony who had matriculated. Out of a total number of over 6,000 teachers there were hardly 600 who had matriculated, and yet the hon. member for East London, belonging to the Cape Province, was throwing stones at them. In spite of the Laws of the Free State he was positive that the average of efficient teachers in that Province would at least double that in the Cape Province. The hon. member for East London went on to say that the provisions were in conflict with the principles of freedom in so much as they tended to accentuate racial divisions. Really, he thought the hon. member ought to have brought in a motion against the law governing Parliamentary elections in the Transvaal, because if the education law was against the principles of freedom and equality because it tended to accentuate racial divisions, he was positive that nobody would deny that something should be done in regard to the election laws. But let him come to the racial divisions. What were the racial divisions which had been caused by the Free State Acts? The extent of that racial division to-day could be judged by this, that, in spite of the Transvaal support, in spite of the whole agitation the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) said, and prided himself upon it, that he was one of the first to start the propaganda in the Free State on this question—in spite of his (Sir Percy’s) propaganda, and in spite of the comments in the press, they found that there were only four or five private schools in which there were no more than 500 children. That was the extent to which this—be could not call it patriotic—this beautiful movement had progressed. Well, it might, be considered to be patriotic by those who supported it, so be might say that it was a patriotic movement. This was the extent to which it was being sympathised with in the Free State. And he was told by somebody who ought to know that those who sat on the committees had never yet thought it their duty to send their children to these schools. The poor ignorant were being duped, and he maintained again that the parent had no right to interfere on the question of medium, or claim that he had a right to interfere on the question of medium.

Who has the right?

It is the State. It is for the State to say which is the beet way of educating the child. Proceeding, he said it was a recognised principle that the soundest and best way of educating a young child was through the medium of his mother tongue, and once that was admitted then he said a parent should not be allowed, either through prejudice or ignorance, to deprive his child of the right of being educated through his mother-tongue. But these racial divisions consisted in the Free State of a very, very few who from the very first moment were against this law, not on any educational grounds so much as because of the prejudice that a great many people had against the Dutch language. (Opposition cries of “(No, no,” and Ministerial cheers.) Let that be admitted. It was so. These prejudices would have been overcome. They were natural. There were many people today who still thought that because the place was a British colony it was against the British Constitution that Article 137 should ever be put into force. They were prejudiced, and would be prejudiced for a long time, and if the matter had not been taken up, he was very sorry to say, from outside by people who had no business to interfere, no doubt well meaning, like his friend, the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick)—

I happen to live in the Free State.

The hon. member says he must live—

I do live in the Free State.

He says you must not live there. (Laughter.)

Well, the hon. member save he lives there. Well, it is like some of us who call ourselves farmers. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the last reason given by the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) to substantiate his charge was that the Acts inflicted a great injury upon the education of the country. What did the hon. member mean by the education of the country? He agreed (with the opinion expressed by the member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) that education through the medium of two languages was more effective than through the medium of one. They in the Free State had had that system in vogue since 1860. The schools where that was practised had given men to South Africa who could hold their own to any unilingual man. He wished to say again: “Place yourselves in the Position in which we, the fathers of the Dutch-Speaking children, are in the Free State, and let us also get bur share in the education of the country. Do not ask all for yourselves.” They protested against bilingual classes in the normal practice in the school where his boy was sitting. Were, then, English children solely to have a medium of English, and he, a Dutch child, their English?

Dutch, if he likes.

said something about liberty.

Liberty? Liberty to do what? That was the liberty they were prepared to extend to the Dutch-speaking child; but when he pointed out to them that either the Dutch or English-speaking child—

Parallel classes.

They don’t want them, but it is the inevitable consequence. (Voices: “No, no.”) Well, if I cannot make hon. members understand that, I’m very sorry for them.

We can never understand that. (Laughter.)

went on to say that under those circumstances he now asked: By what right could the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) move that motion against the Free State Act? In the first place, in the provisions thereof, there was nothing contained which was against the first principle—that of equality of opportunity. They had equal opportunity: every child had. In what way did it clash with freedom? The language? Well, he was prepared after that to have removed from section 15 any provision which might look like, or might be, compulsion, in the first place, of the medium. He was prepared to say that in the place thereof there should be substituted that when an English parent had fully guaranteed that his child should not be made to sit next a Dutch-speaking child, when that child was being taught through the medium of Dutch, that child should not be taught through the medium of Dutch, provided—(an HON. MEMBER: “Provided!”)—that that Parliament would vote the necessary moneys to give the necessary facilities for accommodation—(hear, hear)—and provided that hon. members from the other Provinces would, as far as their laws were concerned, go and do likewise. (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to use his utmost endeavour to have the Free State Act, even though it had been passed with the unanimous consent of the country (An HON. MEMBER: “Not unanimous ”)—altered by having the clause, making the other language compulsory, optional, so that the English child need not learn Dutch if he did not want to. Again, under the same conditions as before, were the hon. members prepared to do so? He said that that motion had been introduced with the object of obtaining an expression of disapproval of the Free State Act as an unjust one, or had been moved in a manner which was unjust even against the Free State, or the Free State Act, and that of all the Acts of the various Provinces in South Africa it, least of all, deserved the disapprobation of anybody. They could not, that House could not, pass a law for one Province. It had equally little right to give an expression of opinion affecting one Province on a subject affecting the various Provinces,; if it were to do its duty. Let it do its duty as against all the Provinces of South Africa. That House was not a Provincial Council; it was a Parliament of Union, and it had to legislate for the Union. Every expression of approval or disapproval should be an expression of approval or disapproval for the Union, as a whole. He thought that he had said enough to convince any reasonable man that that motion should not obtain the consent of Parliament. (Ministerial cheers.) He hoped that what he had further said would do one great thing, and for that he was glad, and indebted to the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe); and he hoped that the discussion which had taken place in the House would go to show the public of South Africa that all the raging accusations which had been made during the last 18 months against that Act, and that feeling which had been stirred up in South Africa—and the men who had constantly prated of the provisions of that Act as though they knew everything and actually knew very little about it—that all that had not been justified, and that a better feeling would prevail in South Africa in the future. Proceeding to deal with some of the remarks of the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) on the previous day, the hon. member said that the hon. member had said that the time might come when they would arise in rebellion against the Free State Act. Let him say that the Act had been in operation for the last 18 months or two years, and never yet had the Dutch in the Free State been so unanimous on that point as they were upon that Free State Act. (A VOICE: “That’s it.”) Every member of that Province sent to Parliament—with one exception—(laughter)—had been elected on that Act, and not a single member would dare to go against that Act, and face his constituents. (Ministerial cheers.) For the hon. member for East London to say that the Dutch would one day rise in rebellion was a fear he (General Hertzog) did not share with the hon. member, but he did share with the hon. member this: That the Dutch people were as anxious to have good and sound education for their children as any unilinguai English-speaking person in South Africa was. And let him assure the hon. member that he could certainly not be more anxious to have his children well educated than he (General Hertzog) was and he protested against his children being taught through a medium which was not the language spoken by them, because he knew from experience that they were beet taught through the medium of their own language. The education of the Dutch-speaking child had been sadly neglected in South Africa. He came now to a somewhat more unpleasant point. That was with regard to the report of the Director of Education in the Free State, which the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) had used to endeavour to substantiate his charges against the Free State Act. The Free State Act had nothing to do with that. The hon. member no doubt had “read the pamphlet on the language question in the Free State written by Mr. Gunn, and he thought that after that, and having read the letter written by Mr. Gunn contemporaneously with his resignation, the hon. member should have abstained from making Mr. Gunn’s retirement a charge against the Education Act of the Free State. The hon. member must know very well that what led up to Mr. Gunn’s resignation was Mr. Gunn’s own fault. He (General Hertzog) had said that afternoon that he was prepared to repeat anywhere outside that House what he said in that House. There were certain statements in that pamphlet which he did not think it would serve any good purpose to criticise in that House that afternoon, but he was prepared on the request of Mr. Gunn, or of any man acting on his behalf outside that House, to tell Mr. Gunn, with regard to certain allegations made by him, such words as would give him the right, if he was a man, to go into a court of law. If there was any man who would take that up on behalf of Mr. Gunn, then he would ask such person to let him know, and he (General Hertzog) would make such statements as would give Mr. Gunn the opportunity of going into a court of law to prove the malicious statements made in his book.

Why didn’t you deny this before?

said that he only read the book on the Friday night before the elections, and then had no further opportunity. And he thought it was better that he didn’t, because he thought violent things enough were said during the elections. But he gave this opportunity to Mr. Gunn or to any man acting on his behalf to take him to a court of law. The hon. member (Colonel Crewe) had referred in the same connection, and for the same purpose to the inspectors Well, as the case was sub judice at present he did not wish to say a single word either one way or the other. The hon. member had further said that he (General Hertzog) had succeeded in driving out of the Free State some of the best teachers. Well, of course, loose statements were easily made, but it was not always easy to substantiate charges. As the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) had exalted some of his prejudices into principles as to the rights of parents and so forth, so, here again, he made a statement without any proof. Teachers had left the Free State, but what must be the state of education in the Cape Colony, what must be the Education Acts in the Cape Colony if they were to be judged by the number of school teachers who had left the Colony for the Free State or the Transvaal? When a teacher got £600 or £800 where formely he or she got £400, certainly he or she would go. The hon. member had asked him to go to the Free State, and said that if he (General Hertzog) went there he could get that matter settled. He hoped the hon. member would be satisfied with what he had said. He did not know that there was anything else in the speech of the hon. member for East London to which he need refer. So far as the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) was concerned, there was only one point he wished to reply to. Yesterday the hon. member said there was a suspicion that everything was subordinated to the desire for the making of a propaganda for the teaching of the language. He (General Hertzog) had not the least doubt that that suspicion was there, but on the other hand he denied that education in the Free State, at any rate, had been based upon that desire on the part of the Dutch. He certainly did want his child to know Dutch well, as the hon. member opposite desired to have his child know English well. That was what they desired in South Africa. “I fully appreciate,” said General Hertzog, in conclusion, “every word the hon. member (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) said yesterday, and I can assure him that if we are to proceed in the spirit, and on the lines indicated by him and other speakers yesterday, if we are prepared to look facts in the face, and when we have faced them, to act and put things straight in South Africa, we shall very soon put South Africa in a different mood, as far as the two races are concerned, than what they are to-day. (Cheers.) I am very sorry that I should have given offence now and again. I can assure the hon. members that in no single instance was it my desire to do so. I have this difficulty which the hon. member for Pretoria East and others have not, and that is, that I have had to speak through the medium of a language which is not my own. I hope the hon. member for Pretoria East will remember that if perhaps, a word has fallen from me which may have sounded strong, I give the assurance that never was it intended that anything I said should have a personal sting, or a sting to any member of this House. Hard words, or rather hard facts, had to be said at times. It is only by doing that —-as the hon. member for Pretoria East knows—it is only really by giving hard knocks—I think it is his belief, and it is my belief, too—by giving hard knocks that we come to shake hands. (Cheers.) I can assure the hon. member for Pretoria East I used the sjambok during the war. (Laughter.) I do not know a single person whom I have sjamboked—the day after I forgot it, with the exception of one man who was a very great friend of mine (Laughter.) I remember, and remember him well. (Laughter.) I hope that my discursion here this afternoon and yesterday, if it has left anything which is unpleasant—will be looked at as that it has been done not to satisfy any resentment on my part, but in order that we may arrive eventually at something in this Parliament which may be for the eternal good of South Africa, and not for one Province only but for all the Provinces. (Loud cheers. )

Well done.

said that they had listened to the defence of the hon. member (General Hertzog). Before he (Mr. Botha) came to the main argument, it would be necessary to clear the ship somewhat of the superfluous matter with which the hon. gentleman had loaded it. In the course of his speech, the hon. member had dealt in a somewhat vitriolic manner with the Education Acts of the other Provinces, particularly the Transvaal. Those remarks should have been addressed not to the members of the Opposition in that House, but in the first instance to the Minister of the Interior, in the second to the right hon. gentleman who led that House, and in the third to the Minister of Finance, for there were no hon. members present who were more responsible in that respect than, the three hon. gentlemen who had received such a castigation from the Minister of Justice. That portion of the address was not necessary that afternoon, if it was intended to persuade the Opposition that the Transvaal law was not in accordance with the South Africa Act. He (Mr. Botha) cordially agreed with the hon. member that that Act was not in accordance with the Act of Union. The hon. member had put up certain arguments which he attributed to the Opposition, and which he then proceeded to demolish with great satisfaction to himself. In the Free State there never was any discussion as to whether Dutch should be taught as a language compulsorily. That was agreed upon in the case of both Dutch and English. What they were concerned with that afternoon principally was the question in the motion. Continuing, he said that he would take the Act clause by clause, as his hon. friend had done, and he would like the House to understand clearly that what they understood by compulsion was depriving the parents of the right to decide upon the medium in which their children should be instructed. Once that right was debarred, it was compulsion. He was going to prove by the hon. gentleman himself that there was compulsion in the Act, and that that was deliberately put in the Act. He would first refer to a pledge given by the hon. member before the election of 1907. He then said that if he were returned to Parliament, he would introduce an Education Act, and in chat Act there would be ample provision made to give parents the right to choose the medium of instruction for their children. His hon. friend did not deny that. That was how he obtained the votes of the electors in the 1907 election. He then introduced his Bill, and in doing so he denied that parents were the competent authority to say that their children should be taught in one language or the other, contending that this should be decided by competent people with experience in these matters. That was the language used by the Minister, who gave a pledge that he would see that the parents would have the right to decide the medium of instruction. He told the House that day that the minority in the Free State House never brought up the question of medium. When he heard what the hon. member had to say that day he was astounded. It seemed to him inconceivable that any man, more especially one occupying such a high position as the Minister for Justice did, should be guilty of such a reckless statement, one so devoid of any support, and one which he (the hon. member) had the power to refute. Hid not the Hon. the Minister for Justice remember the amendment given in by Mr. Barlow on clause 15? That gentleman moved that the following words be added to the clause: “That the medium of instruction would be either English or Dutch, as the parents desired”—(hear, hear)—and “that English and Dutch should he taught as languages through the medium of such languages.” That was on July 13th, 1908. (Hear, hear.) Was it possible that the House, having heard the reckless and unjustifiable statement of the hon. gentleman that the members of the Opposition in the lower House agreed with that policy, that that House which he was then addressing would blindly accept all the other statements made! He submitted that if any man occupying such a position was capable of making such a mistake—and he (the hon. member) honestly believed that the Hon. the Minister had not deliberately made the statement—it showed the peculiar character of the hon. gentleman who would make a reckless statement without making due inquiry as to whether it was correct or not. He would also prove through the interpretation of Dr. Viljoen that the law was intended to contain compulsion, and did contain compulsion. His hon. friend said it was strange: he would prove that it was intended to go in, and was contained in the law. Section 15 said “shall by gradual use” be introduced, while Dr. Viljoen’s interpretation read, “which is not the medium of instruction may be gradually introduced.” (Hear, hear.) They had heard “both” and “either” in that House, but he did not think anybody in that or any other Parliament would ever argue that “shall” and “may” meant the same thing. He submitted that the Director’s words showed perfectly clearly that in interpreting the clause he deliberately violated the law. To show that the Director knew he was violating the Act, he found, on page 18, the Director stating that he intended to have his reading confirmed by the Legislature. He submitted that Dr. Viljoen altered the word “shall” into “may,” because it would be impossible to carry out as it stood. He knew he was violating the law, and therefore safeguarded himself by saying that the time must come when he would have to go to the Legislature to have this ratified. Dr. Viljoen violated the law for a definite reason, and he asked the House why he violated this Act? He submitted that he altered the word “shall” into “may,” because he found the objections in the Free State well founded, because he found that the Act as it stood was impossible of execution, because he found that it would be against education efficiency, and for other reasons he found he must strain it in order to get it properly carried out, and thereby further the cause of education in the Orange Free State. (Hear, hear.) In saying that the rights he was prepared to give every English child he would demand the equal for the Dutch child, he believed he was right when he said he would have the support of the Opposition, and that they would support the Minister of Education in giving every child equal rights. Also, they would support him to a man in any effort to carry out the necessary arrangements to carry out the provisions in the South; Africa Act. (Hear, hear.) The Minister for Justice had twitted them by saying that there were few who had read the Education Act until a week or so ago. He Mr. Botha) was prepared to go further, and say that there were few of the members opposite who had ever read the Act at all to this day. There was one member on the Government side of the House, from the Free State, who was heckled on the Act at a public meeting, and, in the course of the heckling, had to get up and ask one of the audience to come up on the platform and help him to explain the Act, because he did not understand it—(laughter) —and this was one of those who helped the Minister for Justice while Minister for Education in the Free State to pass that Act. He was one of those who would not go back to his constituency and say he had voted against the Hertzog Act, and that was because the people in the Free State had got into that state that they were bound to follow what General Hertzog said. They did not realise what the Act was. The interpretation that had been adopted caused great dissatisfaction, and the remedy the Minister found, was to dismiss his officers who interpreted it differently. There was another proof that the hon. gentleman intended to introduce compulsory bilingualism, and that was to be found in the Teachers’ Act. The School Act of 1908 would have been a hopeless failure, unless it was supplemented by the Teachers’ Grading Act of 1908. They could not carry out the first Act unless they had bilingual teachers, and that was why it said, in section 52 of the Teachers’ Act: “No person shall thereafter be appointed as a teacher who shall not be proficient in and conversant with both languages.” It showed perfectly clearly that there was the intention of the Minister for Justice to introduce an Act, containing as its element and essence compulsory bilingualism. He had attempted to explain away some remarks made by him, regarding the stopping up of children’s ears with mud. He (Mr. Botha) did not think the Minister intended to be offensive to the British section, but it only showed the state of his mind. But it showed the difficulties they had to contend with, and the difficulties in the way of a compromise on that question. What the Minister no doubt meant was that if the children did not like to stay, they could leave the schools. But did not he realise that—say, they had a geography class. They started with the Dutch medium, and after they had finished half-an-hour, the Dutch children went out. They could not have the whole hour for one medium, they must divide it, so that each child only got half the lesson it should. That was why it seemed to him so utterly hopeless from an educational point of view. The hon. member said: “Yes, but the English child can stop up its ears.” Yes, but that English child paid for its education. They did not get 20s. in the £, but only 10s. in the £. That was a phase of the question which did not seem to have struck the hon. gentleman. Then he said it would be necessary to supply separate buildings. That was quite unnecessary. Surely the Minister for Justice could have parallel classes. That was a suggestion made to the hon. gentleman time after time, but he bad a majority, and insisted on carrying every bit of legislation put forward, without reference to the Opposition at all. The Hon. Minister for Education, the previous day, made use of an expression which he would like to impress upon every member of the House. He said in any dispute about the languages in South Africa, they must be very careful not to touch upon sentiment, sympathies, or even the prejudices of race, because the language question so easily became a race question. That was a phase that he would like to impress upon all those who so heartily cheered the Minister for Justice yesterday. He (Mr. Botha) belonged to the same race as did General Hertzog. In the Act the Minister for Justice passed in the Free State, he never touched his (Mr. Botha’s) race, and never interfered with his prejudices. He had always tried to place himself in the position of the minority in the Free State. The Minister for Justice had quoted figures that showed the minority the English children were in in the Free State. He accepted those figures, but they made the matter all the more serious, in that where there was so little risk, General Hertzog had not the greatness of spirit to risk it. Throughout he had tried to look on it from the point of view of the English-speaking child and the English-speaking parent; He had always said that if there had been more concession, and a spirit of conciliation shown on the part of the Minister for Justice, the feeling of racialism and bitter animosity that had been awakened over the matter would never have been caused. Another evil consequence of the Act was that it tended to deprive English-speaking children from being taught by men who spoke their own language. He believed it was possible to get teachers who could speak both languages perfectly and fluently, but such cases were rare, and there would never be any number of such teachers until Parliament was prepared to lay down an adequate scale of salaries, a scale which would be sufficient to induce men to devote themselves to the profession of teaching in South Africa. He was not referring to the big schools and Colleges, but to the little schools throughout the country, where it was vitally important the best class of teachers should be engaged. In the Free State the’ qualifications of teachers were being tested under the Act, and as a result they found the people holding degrees of Master of Arts, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Science, and others possessing the highest teaching qualifications were only getting third-class provisional certificates. When 90 per cent, of teachers were declared unfit for their duties by a Board of Examiners— a Board, ’ the members of which were appointed by the Minister for Justice—then he had no hesitation in saying there must be something inherently wrong with an Act which enabled that to be said. The Hon. the Minister for Justice had seen fit to be rather caustic in his remarks about the agitation against the Act, and he (Mr. Botha) was sorry that the hon. member had spoilt an otherwise excellent contribution to the debate by the manner in which he referred to the agitation. A man occupying the position of Minister for Education— a position formerly held by the present Minister for Justice—should have his fingers upon every pulse of education, he should be able to see any little ripple upon the surface, and he should be particularly careful at no time to do the slightest thing which might make either race think slightingly of the other. That was why he (the speaker) was sorry the hon. member in referring to the agitation against the Act should have done so in the bantering tone he adopted. He would refer the House to the debates in the late Free State Parliament, and he would especially ask hon. members sitting on the opposite side of the House to take the trouble to read the speeches then made, especially during the first period of the debates, They would find that the most earnest desire prevailed on the part of the Opposition to get the Minister for Education to give way. When they found that the Minister for Education would not budge, they tried by deputation and they tried by personal interviews to make him realise that the opposition was not merely a factious opposition, but that they were actuated by an earnest desire to get a reasonable settlement of what seemed to be a most undesirable and dangerous position. When they found that it was impossible to carry their way in Parliament, owing to the bovine minority against them, and when they found they could not get satisfaction in any other way, they proceeded to have mass meetings. Mass meetings were held all over the Free State. There were meetings held in Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Harrismith, and in other towns. The Hon. the Minister for Justice said those meetings were held where the opposition was strongest. Naturally they held meetings where the opposition was strong, as at was necessary to show the hon. gentleman that there was a real opposition. Ultimately these different public meetings formed committees, and he now came to something personal. The hon. gentleman yesterday was guilty of another statement which was not a fact. He made the statement that a member of this House proceeded to England for the purpose of obtaining Imperial intervention If the Minister for Justice had taken the slightest trouble to make inquiries he would have known that that statement was entirely beside the mark. When the committees found that the Convention leaders were going to England, and that the leaders of the Free State Parliament were included, they thought it would be an excellent opportunity of endeavouring to obtain a round table conference between the parties most concerned. These parties were the Free State, South Africa., and England, and he could give the hon. member (General Hertzog) the assurance that in approaching the members of the Imperial Government they laid most careful stress upon the fact that under no circumstances did they ask them to interfere; all they asked them for was their good offices. He would be sorry to say what the representatives of the British Ministry had said with regard to the difficulties which the Minister of Justice put in the way. He thought he had better not say anything further about that subject. When the hon. gentleman came back from England and found that the agitation had not ceased, he summoned a conference deliberately of English parents. He wished that the Minister of Justice would in future be more careful in attributing sentiments to others. That afternoon he referred to the unworthy conduct of those to the conference in telling him that they would have nothing to do with the Dutch parents. He (the speaker) was sorry that the Minister of Justice was not in his seat, because he was prepared to ask him to his face: Was it not a fact that he deliberately summoned the English parents? He was also prepared to ask him if it was not a fact that he deliberately told those gentlemen: “Please do not speak on behalf of the Dutch parents; I am here to represent them?” Now, in view of the fact that he told them that, by what justification had he for coming to the House and referring to the unworthy conduct of those gentlemen? Proceeding, the speaker said that those in opposition to the Education Act tried first in Parliament and then outside of Parliament to obtain a solution, and it was not until they were absolutely pushed against the wall that they decided to establish private schools. He thought the minority in the Free State had a right to look to the Government for assistance; they had a right to ask Government to intervene on their behalf, and it was only when Government refused to help them that they decided they must help themselves. He did not think it, was right that the Minister of Education should jeer at the movement.

said that he wished to say that what he intended to convey in his speech the other day was that during the elections, not in the Free State, there was too much agitation and too little education.

I am glad of the explanation. Proceeding, he asked was there any member opposite who objected to them asking the Government for assistance. Surely, the Prime Minister would be the last to take up that attitude. The right hon. gentleman, when he was under Grown Colony Government took the very same steps when he found that the Government would not help them in the matter of schools. General Botha and his friends started private schools, and they were successful afterwards in getting assistance. Continuing, the speaker said that the hon. gentleman (General Hertzog) became furious yesterday at the mere mention of Lord Milner’s name. Now he (Mr. Botha) was not concerned with Lord Milner or with his Government, but he wished to say that if Lord Milner endeavoured to break the Afrikander nation by making it learn English did that give the Minister of Justice a right to retaliate or to revenge by endeavouring to break the English people in the Free State by compelling them to team Dutch? Would it not have been more generous, in view of the manner in which Great Britain treated the two Republics after the war, would it not have been more generous and more broad-minded instead of referring to the Milner regime for him to have said, “I will forget it”? He would remind hon. members opposite of the words spoken by a man whom they respected, as he did. He referred to Lord De Villiers, who had said that the language question was one that would settle itself, and that the greatest would survive. The hon. member, referring to what the Minister of Justice had said about Mr. Gunn’s statements in his pamphlet, said that, notwithstanding that Mr. Gunn had felt that he was suffering from an injustice at the hands of the Hon. Minister, there was not a single Word of abuse in that pamphlet against the Minister. The hon. member said that he regretted that a Minister of the Crown should be the first to set them, ordinary members of the House, an example of conduct of that description. One of the first who had signed the petition upon which the concordat had been framed had been himself the hon. member), and he had tried to get from the Government of the day a recognition of the rights of the Dutch language. The Minister of Justice had said that he had reserved the right of repudiating that concordat immediately. He (the hon. member) had, however, the assurance of two men who had been present at the Conference, who said that that was not the case, and who denied what the Minister had said. He fully admitted that the Minister had the right the moment Responsible Government was introduced to alter it, but no right while there was still the Crown Colony Government. He wished to refer to the matter to show the reckless way in which the Minister of Justice went about conducting the affairs of the country. Continuing, the hon. member said that he thought, in view of the attitude which had now finally been taken up by the Minister of Justice, that there was some hope of a settlement of that question. (Hear, hear.) He had at last admitted that, as far as he (General Hertzog) was concerned, he was prepared to grant to the parents of the Orange Free State the right to choose the medium of language through which their children should be educated. True, it had been coupled with a condition, but it was the first time in which they had been able to obtain a concession so great, and so enormous from the Minister of Justice; and it had taken them three years of solid hard work in Parliament to do so. The condition that the other Provinces should agree to it was one which he (Mr. C. L. Botha) for one could not see carried out, because he represented only a minority in the Free State. If the members who represented the other Provinces took his advice they would consent to the proposal of the Minister of Justice. He thought that it had been proved to the other side of the House that the provisions of the Education Act in the Free State with regard to the medium were so bad that they required the remedy of that House. He thought the Opposition had proved its bona fides, and had made out a clear case. He believed that if this question were left to a few people to deal with independently of party polities it would be possible to obtain a satisfactory settlement. (Cheers.)

who was received with cheers, said that he would not enter into the merits of the respective South African Education Acts. He had risen only to assist in finding a solution of the difficulty to which the motion of the hon. member for East London had led. It was not a particularly difficult matter to find fault with Provincial legislation. Probably there was not a law in South Africa with which no fault could be found. Parliament was above all Provincial laws, and should maintain the dignity of that position. It should recognise that some matters had been left to the Provinces to deal with, and they must recognise that, or they would come into collision with some of the Provinces. The first thing they must take into consideration was to give that freedom and equality of opportunity which the Constitution gave to South Africa. He was very thankful that the House had debated the matter—which was of a most delicate and difficult nature —with calmness, and he was of opinion that there was a solution, if they only set about to work in the right way. It was true that his friends the Opposition had made that cry the loudest in their election campaign, and that medium question the strongest in their platform. They had “hunted the hare,” and not only that, but thousands and tens of thousands of people had followed. (Laughter.) Many people at the present day were still following it. He thought no one could blame them very much for it, because it had proved advantageous to some of them on the Opposition benches. (Laughter.) He had always felt that as soon as one came to the language, or the educational, question in South Africa, one was on very dangerous ground, and they had to be extremely careful; and to a certain extent that election cry of the Opposition had caused damage n South Africa, because it had driven the people into the racial camps to a certain extent. The question must not be considered from the party standpoint, the elections—where that matter had been treated in a party manner—were past; and to-day they had the Union Parliament, which must keep up its dignity in dealing with that matter, and keep the peace in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) There was no doubt that every Englishman had a great love for his language. He did not ‘blame them for that; on the contrary, he thought all the more of them—(applause)—because they did so, but, on the other hand, the Dutch had as great a love for their language; and he, as the leader of a large portion of the Dutch-speaking community in South Africa, must say that he loved his language as much as an Englishman loved his—(applause)—and what he desired to see was co-operation throughout the whole of South Africa, when both languages should be on an equal footing, without compulsion and with co-operation he felt sure they could come to a solution. He desired to say to his English-speaking friends that the Dutch-speaking population had also made great sacrifices, which he hoped would be appreciated, because these people had laid down all they held dear, thinking that they would get the same rights for their language as the English desired for theirs. They now had the Union Parliament, and they might practically consider themselves the conquerors of the dissensions of the past in South Africa. If it had not been that they had come to an agreement on that delicate and difficult matter, and that they had regulated it in the Constitution, they would not have had that Parliament, and they would not have set there as conquerors of those past dissensions. Let them, therefore, go on in the same spirit of give and take as regards the language and educational questions in South Africa. He had hoped, and he still hoped, that the House would not do anything which would divide the people of South Africa on racial lines. That House, in fact, had a splendid opportunity of solving those questions satisfactorily, which he hoped it would take full advantage of, so as to uphold its dignity. (Applause.) Continuing, he said that he hoped the motion before the House would not be agreed to. Why he did not like it was because it gave them no solution of the difficulty at all. If it were carried, he was very much afraid that it would add fuel to the fire, and make matters worse. Instead of giving them a solution to that most difficult problem of language, it would deal with it in piecemeal fashion, and it would be a most fatal step for them to take. If they agreed to the motion, as it stood, it would only bring about more bitterness in South Africa., He believed that everyone had that matter at heart, yet their responsibility was great, and the slightest mistake which might be made would have the most calamitous consequences as far as South Africa was concerned. Therefore, as men of intelligence, he hoped that they would make use of that intelligence, in order to do away with divisions in. South Africa, and in the direction of co-operation. If it had not been for that intelligence and the patriotism of the members of the National Convention, there would have been no Union. From his knowledge of members of that House, he confidently expected that they would co-operate and solve that difficult in a brilliant fashion. They must not try to find a solution by going only in one direction, but they must do so in such a manner that both sections of the population felt satisfied. (Hear, hear.) Even if further sacrinces were called for, the House could not shirk its enormous responsibility in the matter. The welfare of South Africa depended on it. They had thousands of children growing up, and did they not want them to become good South Africans, who knew each other and loved their country? They had the opportunity, and let them grasp it, so that people of both races could work together, animated with but one aim. (Cheers.) The hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) had referred (to the speech which he (General Botha) had made at Johannesburg, in which he had declared in favour of equal opportunity for all, mother tongue medium, and no compulsion. As a matter of fact, as soon as the Cabinet assembled, they agreed that if anything could be done in the Provincial Councils, members of the Cabinet would use their influence in order to have those principles embodied in the several Education Laws. He was very sorry that hon. members opposite had not stood up then, and spoken with that earnestness on that question with which they had spoken the previous day, for had his hon. friends on the other side at once declared, after the declaration of policy which he had laid down, that they were satisfied, that they would work together, and bring into practical effect what he had outlined in his speech, they would not have had that motion in the House, or that discussion. There would not have been that agitation going on in the country, and there would have been more satisfaction in South Africa. That agitation had been worked up, however, for another purpose, and no attempt had been made by the other side to get the matter settled. During the elections hon. members opposite had told him that they were satisfied, except for some of the provisions in the O.F.S. Act, which he (the speaker) was expected to have withdrawn. He did not consider that it was within the power of that House to bring that about (by ordering the Orange Free State to amend their Act. The impression which he had got from the speeches of this hon. friends opposite was that they were not quite sincere about that matter. If the matter of education had been wholly in the hands of the Union Government, it would have carried out the declaration of policy which he had made at Johannesburg, but, under the provisions of the Act of Union, primary and secondary education was left in the hands of the Provincial Councils for five years after Union, and they must conform to that. The aim of the amendment which he would move was not to intimidate the Provincial Councils or to tamper with their powers, but that there should be a proper understanding between them in that House. The House had an influence over the Union, as a whole, and if they came to an understanding on that question, they could try to get the Provinces to adopt that agreement, but they could not force them to do so. In war it was always a mistake first to Storm a position and then to run away—(laughter)— but they were not able to run away from the question before them, difficult as it was, for it had to be faced, and they could not escape it. They must all do their best to solve it. The purpose of the Government was to make an end of the agitation which had been going on, which they considered unnecessary in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) The policy which they must adopt in South Africa was one of co-operation, and not of compulsion, and therefore he hoped he would have the assistance of the Opposition in that matter, so that they could arrive at a satisfactory solution. They must cry “Halt,” as far as that agitation was concerned. The resolution did not intend to infringe the rights of any of the Provinces, and he thought he could call on the co-operation of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, just as he had assisted them in regard to clause 137 of the Act of Union. (Applause.) They should not quarrel about that question, which had caused so much trouble and sorrow in the past in South Africa, and he was confident that, with the assistance of all his hon. friends opposite, they could and would arrive at a solution. (Cheers.) He moved as an amendment: To omit all the words after “that,” for the purpose of inserting the following: “With a view to ensuring in regard to the system of public education throughout the Union the due application of the principles of freedom, and equality laid down in Article 137 of the South Africa Act, a Select Committee be appointed to examine the educational systems of the four Provinces of South Africa, with a view to ascertaining: (1) Whether they are in harmony with Article 137 of the South Africa-Act; (2) whether they involve any compulsion in respect of the teaching or use as a medium of either the English or the Dutch language, and in case in any particular they are not in harmony with Article 137 of the said Act, or do involve compulsion in regard to language, to make recommendations as to the best means of bringing them into harmony with the principles enunciated in Article 137 of the said Act, due regard being had to the rights assigned to the Provincial authorities under the South Africa Act”—the committee to have power to take evidence and ask for papers. (Loud applause.)

seconded.

rose, amid cheers. He said he felt sure that both sides of the House would fall in with the appeal of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. (Cheers.) It seemed to be the usual function of the Prime Minister nowadays to throw oil on troubled waters, and surely the speech which his right hon. friend had just made was no exception. But had that speech been delivered immediately after the speech of his hon. friend the member for East London, who had brought forward the motion, he felt that it would have been his place to have got up at once and accepted, if not the amendment, at least the principle enunciated in the amendment, by his hon. friend the Prime Minister. But there had been speeches. (Laughter.) And he felt at a slight disadvantage in following the right hon. gentleman. He must acknowledge a very imperfect knowledge of Dutch. That was what had put him at a disadvantage, and he would say, especially to the Minister for Justice, that if he would remember the very forcible words enunciated by President Steyn, and also his hon. friend the Minister of Lands on certain occasions that the Dutch language, in which he was so imperfect, should not be forced down the throats of the children, if he would remember that, he felt sure that hon. members sitting on that side of the House in the future would not suffer from, the same disadvantage that he (the speaker) suffered. He thought that there was no doubt that, given freedom and equality of opportunity, as quoted by his hon. friend the member for East London and others, that there was no doubt but that there was a desire that children throughout the country should know both languages. (Cheers.) But that could only be achieved by freedom, equality of opportunity, and not by compulsion. And when the Hon. the Minister for Justice recalled that phrase to his mind; if he would concentrate his mind on those words, he thought he would find that he would bring up in front of himself a picture of what actually took place at the Convention when this subject of the language clause was under debate: and if he filled in that picture completely, he (Dr. Jameson) felt certain we would understand a great deal of what his hon. friend the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) said that afternoon regarding the attitude of the minority in the Free State, and the Unionists’ attitude during the election, and the attitude of the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) in moving that motion. (Hear, hear.) They were quite aware of what they had been reminded by the Minister of Education of the close relationship between the questions of language and race. They also did not forget the bitter controversies which had taken place on both of these subjects; but, at the same time, they had full confidence, as was expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria East—(bear, bear)—that, in this larger and wider atmosphere of Union, the subject could be discussed with toleration and confidence, and he thought the House would agree that they were justified in their confidence. So strongly did they feel on this subject that, even at the risk of acrimonious discussion as they had bad in the past, so strongly did they feel that the continued enforcement of these Acts must mean putting back of the progress of this country for at least a generation, and far worse than this, that it was their justification for the motion which was before the House that day. He did not agree with the Prime Minister that the motion led nowhere. He believed it led to an acknowledgment, which, optimistic as be usually was, he never expected to get from the Minister of Justice. He alluded to the amendment which he believed would be the first step to an amicable adjustment, (Cheers.) The Minister for Education had recalled the minds of hon. members of the House to certain speeches delivered by Mr. Steyn and himself, and did so to show that they were not always of the same mind, as they were now, on this question of equality of language. He was perfectly right. He (Dr. Jameson) had confessed it before, and did so now that on that occasion he was a convert; that he required to be converted, and that he did not understand the question until Mr. Steyn spoke in the Convention. He acknowledged, further, that they went to the Convention with the idea of bringing about as perfect a Union, as ideal a Union as possible. In that ideal Union, certainly in their minds, unilingualism and not bilingualism was the ideal when they went to the Convention. At the same time, even then, and before then, they could fully sympathise with the sentimental views of the Dutch language; but they recognised that for business the language of commerce was English; and though certainly there should be no penalising of Dutch, their feelings were that only English Would be the official language of the Union. It was only when sentiment was laid on the fact; when that feeling speech of Mr. Steyn’s was made, when he said that it was not merely sentiment, but the symbol of the equality of their race—(hear, hear)—that it was understood fully, not only by himself, but the whole of his party, and he did not think there had been a dissentient from that view ever since, and it was in that view that his hon. friend’s, the member for East London (Colonel Crewe), motion was brought forward. The Minister of Education had done his best to defend his brother, the Minister for Justice. He admired him when he skirted round the speech, and still more the way in which he avoided saying that the Free State Act was a violation of the Convention; in fact, when the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) tackled him, the Minister for Education gave exactly the same answer as he (Dr. Jameson) would have given. He said, “If there are any contradictions to the views laid down on this clause 137 by the Prime (Minister, then I say they are against Article 137 of the Act of Union. That is my view.” (Laughter.) When the Prime Minister laid down in Pretoria—the first time he spoke after the formation of the Cabinet —mother medium, equality of opportunity and freedom; that was the interpretation of Article 137. Freedom meant no compulsion. Then the Minister for Education said, “We must give some view,” so they got that interesting paper which they could not criticise when it was read the previous night. But now they had had time to examine it, and his friend the hon. member for Bloemfontein had pointed out two portions of this report of the Director, under the Minister of Justice, who said, absolutely, that in order to carry out the Orange Free State Education Act of 1908 he had to break the law. (Hear, hear.) He was very glad to see the Hon. the Minister of Justice smile. Because he did not shake his head he knew it was true; he felt that it was an easy way out of it for him. The Minister of Education commented on their attitude on the Act. He seemed to anticipate and even answer the first line of defence of the Minister for Justice; unconsciously, no doubt. What was his line? The line that had been alluded to that afternoon practically meant, “Somebody did wrong in the past; I make it right now.” With regard to the letter to Lord Milner, quoted by the Minister of Justice yesterday, that was a letter for which Lord Milner was not responsible. It was a letter from Mr. Sergeant, Director of Education at the time. Was there not the excuse for Mr. Sergeant, when he wanted to Anglicise the country, that he did not understand the country? They could not expect him (after his few years’ residence in South Africa to understand the country and the position as those of them who had been here for many years understood it. What he (Dr. Jameson) quarrelled with was the emphasis laid by the Minister of Justice upon the idea of imbuing the Free State with British ideals. He himself saw no difference between British and Dutch ideals. British ideals were freedom and justice, and surely the Dutch people were not going to say that those were not their ideals also? He claimed to agree with every pronouncement made by the Prime Minister on those larger subjects from the time the Convention sat up to and including the speech he had made that afternoon. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Justice had given in historical retrospect three facts: The numbers of children in the Free State schools, the numbers that were Dutch, and the numbers that were English. The hon. member pointed out that the latter figures were as 95 per cent. to 5 per cent. It did not matter if the percentage of English children was only 1 per cent.; but in taking the line of argument of percentage, the hon. member was surely acknowledging the charge brought against him by the hon. member for East London, that the idea was government by the majority, and let the minority go hang. Then the hon. the Minister of Justice, in his defence, spoke of his own infallibility. He dwelt on his own absolute knowledge and the absolute ignorance of members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House. What were they talking about? He said that hon. members on that side of the House got their information from the late Director of Education of the Free State, and that they had got hold of a tissue of falsehoods in the memorandum of the official. The hon. member for Bloemfontein had already alluded to that pamphlet, but as he (Dr. Jameson) knew Mr. Gunn fairly intimately, he would like to say in his absence that they only had the statement of the Minister of Justice, and not the reply of Mr. Gunn. He could tell the Minister of Justice that after the pamphlet was issued. Mr. Gunn stayed for some weeks in this country, to the detriment of his health, so as to give time to the Minister of Justice to voice any objection he might have to the statements in the pamphlet. If the Minister of Justice would only take the trouble to out his pen in his hand and write to his late Director of Education explaining where he thought he was misrepresented, he (Dr. Jameson) guaranteed he would get a satisfactory reply from the gentlemen. If the House accepted the amendment of the right hon. the Prime Minister, he (Dr. Jameson) had personally not the slightest doubt that they would be able to mutually agree upon conditions which would be acceptable to both sides of the House. He could assure the Government that they would have the cordial co-operation of his side of the House in seeking a solution of the difficulty and a remedy of the grievance that existed to-day. The appointment of the committee would be an admirable step, and when the committee had reported he felt sure the Minister of Justice would have no difficulty in accepting their finding, and that he would then go, backed up by his late Prime Minister, the present Minister of Lands, and tour the Orange Free State, and with his influence bring about a happier and satisfactory state of affairs. Then he (Dr. Jameson) was sure there would be no necessity to interfere with any specific rights of the Provincial Councils, and they would have one law on education satisfactory to every member of both races throughout the Union. (Cheers.)

said he would withdraw his motion if he could do so under the Rules of the House. He would merely say, in reply to the debate, that he endorsed every word uttered by the leader of that side of the House, If the committee was appointed, he was sure that every member on his side of the House would do his best to bring about a satisfactory solution of the question.

Will the hon. member accept the amendment now as the original motion?

Yes.

then put the amendment as the original motion, and declared that it was carried.

An amendment to the Estimates of Expenditure, viz.: to omit all the items under Vote No. 27 “Public Debts” on pages 159 to 161 of the Estimates, and to substitute others (as printed on pages 164-6 of the Votes and Proceedings).

Memorandum by the Cape Superintendent-General of Education on the teaching of the English and Dutch languages in the Cape Province.

from D. Campbell, late police constable.

from T. Byren, painter, “Salt River Railway Works.

from women of the Cape Colony re the age of consent.

from C. M. Marais, widow, of Beaufort West.

from A. Saunders, railway service, Orange Free State.

from A. H. Stace, Railway Department.

from W. H. Searle, assistant, South African Public Library, Cape Town.

from R. Blake, assistant teacher, Education Department.

from A. Bartholomew, Cape Government Railways.

as Chairman, brought up the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:—

Fourth report of the Select Committee, appointed by Orders of the House of Assembly, dated the 7th and 8th November, 1910, on Standing Rules and Orders, and to consist of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, Dr. Jameson, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Juta, and Mr. Watt. Your Committee having conferred with a Select Committee of the Senate in regard to the Joint Parliamentary Establishment, beg to recommend, as follows:—I. That the following appointments be made and salaries awarded, viz.: Librarian, W. Flint, D.D., £600 p.a; Assistant Librarian, J. F. Zahn, £250 p.a.; Caretaker, E. Kellaway, £300 p.a., and free house. II. That H. J. Tomlinson be appointed as Library messenger, with salary at the rate of £78 per annum. III. That Arthur Kellaway be placed on the list of monthly paid men, with salary at the rate of 7s. 6d. per diem, including Sundays. IV. That J. Gaskell be appointed gardener, with salary at the rate of £196 per annum, and that he be allowed, under the supervision of the Clerk of the House of Assembly, extra assistance at an expenditure not to exceed £30 per annum. V. That cleaner Mansell’s rate of pay be increased to 6s. 7d. per diem; and that the present staff of cleaners be retained.

stated that unless notice of objection to the report was given at the next sitting of the House, the report would be considered as adopted.

Return showing: (a) The strength of the Police Force in Johannesburg on the 1st March, 1907; (b) number of men enlisted in the Police Force of the Transvaal, and pay of each of the men; (c) number of men discharged; (d) the names and rank of those who have since the 1st June last applied for their discharge.

Estimates of revenue for the ten months ending 31st March, 1911.

moved that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

seconded.

Mr. Speaker,—I do not suppose, sir, that there are many hon. members who envy the task which I have to perform this afternoon. It is never an interesting thing explaining a mass of figures, and my difficulties to-day are rather increased by the fact that I have to start, so to speak, on page 1, in submitting to this House and to the public of South Africa outside this House, and explaining the financial position, which will be both clear and concise. There is a further difficulty, I feel, that in presenting a statement of this kind there are a number of things which might conveniently be omitted, and other matters which ought to be dwelt upon at greater length. If, therefore, on the one hand, I were to touch only slightly upon some of these matters, it would be said that my statement is not sufficiently complete, whilst, on the other hand, if I dealt at too great length on other matters, I run the risk of wearying the House; but I feel certain of one thing, and that is that the House will extend to me to-day a greater measure of indulgence than I should expect on any other occasion. (Hear, hear.) Well sir, before I proceed further, I should like to say—and I think the House will agree with me—that this is hardly the occasion upon which we should enter into an exhaustive examination of the financial policy of the Government of the Union. It will be remembered that the Estimates which I am submitting to the House this afternoon deal only with a 10 months’ period, and that more than half of that period has already lapsed. Furthermore, the expenditure covered by that 10 months’ period has already, to a large extent—the greater portion of that expenditure covered by the Estimates has already been actually incurred, and therefore I think hon. members will agree with me that the better plan will be to wait until we are dealing with next years’ Estimates before the House enters upon any elaborate examination of financial policy. Furthermore, I should point out that the accounting officers, when they were asked to submit their expenditure Estimates, were requested to proceed, as far as possible, on the old lines, and on the basis prior to May 31; and on no account were they to make provision for new services in these Estimates, except in special cases, where the public would suffer if no provision were made for these new services.

You have not included the extraordinary expenditure.

If the hon. member will wait, I will give all these figures when the times comes.

said he thought the House would like to thank the Hon. the Treasurer for the very clear statement he had put before them. Of course, hon. members always experienced great difficulty in forming conclusions immediately after listening to a Budget speech. There were certain items in the Estimates as laid before the House which he was not quite clear about. There was the statement showing the interest payable on debt, for instance. For the ten months the interest payable on the Free State debt of £35,000,000 was given at £525,000. At the end of the financial year, however, the payments which fell due were heavier than at other times of the year, and the payment for ten months Could not be taken as ten-twelfths of the total payment under that head. However, as was customary, he would not delay the House further that afternoon, but would now move the adjournment of the debate.

who seconded, said it would be convenient if the Budget Speech could be printed for the information of hon. members.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Thursday.

moved that in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the minutes of the South African National Convention be printed and published. The right hon. gentleman said that now that full Union had been attained, it was in the interests of everyone in South Africa that the minutes of the Convention should be published. (Hear, hear.) What had taken place in the Convention had been made use of on platforms. Some of the members of the Convention had preserved silence, others had not, thereby acting contrary to the feelings of colleagues. This had led to a kind of agitation among the people. In order to stop that, and because no good reason now existed why publication should not take place, he moved the resolution on behalf of his hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior.

in seconding the motion, said that originally, when the Convention met, he was an advocate for not having any reporters present, because he knew that if reporters were admitted to their deliberations, the Convention would still have been sitting, if they had not come to bloodshed. (Laughter.) When it was decided to observe secrecy in a matter of that kind, there ought to be an understanding that the matter was secret, but it was astonishing how many imaginative statements about the doings of the Convention had been put forward by one person and another, since the Convention had! finished its labours. There was one distinguished orator in South Africa who never made a speech without relating some incident that happened at the Convention. That gentleman was gifted with an imagination to which he had given free scope in a book which he thought they would all agree was a credit to South Africa, ‘but when he carried that brilliant imagination into the realms of politics, he (Mr. Merriman) was not quite sure that the result was so satisfactory. (Laughter.) He hoped the printing of the minutes would be got on with as quickly as possible, and then everybody would see on what a slender foundation many of the things which had been related about the Convention rested.

said he would like to know if the minutes of the Convention recorded all the large number of “honourable understandings” that were arrived at from time to time by the delegates? (Laughter. )

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon an application, which has been submitted to Government, in terms of Act No. 15 of 1909 (Orange River Colony), for the establishment of a township on the farm Liliefontein, No. 251, district of Ficksburg, Orange Free State; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Messrs. C. L. Botha, Brain, and the mover.

seconded.

thought that a new departure was being made in having a Select Committee consisting of only three members, all of whom happened to come from the same Province—not that he said that there was any objection to that. He suggested to the Minister of Lands that another two members should be added.

said that he had no objection, but the matter was absolutely one of pro forma, in that instance. He explained why he moved the appointment of the committee.

I must remind the hon. member that an eminent authority recently translated “pro forma” as “in a great hurry.” (Laughter.)

The motion as to the appointment of the committee was agreed to.

amendment (the number of members of the committee to be five) which was seconded by Mr. J. X. MERRIMAN (Victoria West) was also agreed to.

proposed that Dr. Smartt (Fort Beaufort) and Mr. Currey (George) should be the additional members of the committee. (Laughter.)

The hon. member will give notice to-morrow for the two other members.

moved the third reading of the Bill.

asked whether he was allowed to move an amendment at that stage, or had he to have given notice on the paper?

It is not in accordance with the rules of the House to move an amendment at the third reading, unless notice has been given on the paper.

May I draw the Minister of Justice’s attention that in clause 4 power has been, or is proposed to be, given to the Appellate Division, which is obviously against the sense and the feeling of this House—the power to take evidence by affidavit without a stipulation being made for a replying affidavit in any way, or provision being made for testing the bona fides of the affidavit before the Court. Could not the Minister of Justice withdraw this power now, seeing that it is a power which is not now given to the Court?

It is not my intention to take anything out of the Bill. If the attention of members of the Senate is drawn to this, the matter may be dealt with there. (Hear, hear.)

The Bill was read a third time.

moved that in line 50 the word “convicted” be deleted. It was this, he said, that caused the trouble. It was a word that was introduced by the draughtsman, and should have been left out. The word “but” would then be in order.

thought the intention was that one person should not be convicted under two laws—under common law and statute law.

withdrew his amendment to delete the word “but.”

The amendment moved by the Minister of Justice was then put and declared agreed to, and the clause as amended was passed.

Clauses 17 and 18 were amended.

On the last item in the schedule,

moved, to omit sub-sections (1), (2) and (3).

The amendment was agreed to.

The schedule as amended was agreed to.

On clause 3,

moved: In line 23, to omit all the words after “Gazette” down to “Gazette” in line 28, and substitute the following: “(a) In the case of laws, proclamations, regulations, notices, or other documents published prior to the thirty-first day of May, 1910, and required under a law in force prior to that day to be published in the ‘ Gazette’ shall mean the ‘ Government Gazette’ of the colony wherein that law was in force; and (b) in the case of laws, proclamations, regulations, notices or other documents published after the thirty-first day of May, 1910, and required under any law to be published in the “Gazette” shall mean the Union of South Africa Government ‘Gazette,’ or if the matter be one reserved to or delegated to a Provincial Council under the South Africa Act, 1909, shall mean the ‘ Official Gazette’ of the Province concerned.”

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was agreed, to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and the amendments were set down for consideration on Wednesday.

in moving the second reading of the Police Bill, said it was imperative that the police of the various Provinces of the Union should be organised as soon as possible into one body, so as to have one legal authority. That could not be effectively done at present, because in some of the colonies the police force was in one body, whereas in other colonies the police were split up into four or five sections, all regulated by different laws, differing especially as to organisation. The Cape have five different kinds of police; Natal have three. In order therefore to constitute one police force for the Union, it was necessary to repeal the different laws affecting the police in the Cape Colony, and to make provision for amalgamation. It was not necessary that the different police forces of the Cape Colony, for instance, should immediately be amalgamated in the general police force of the Union, and in how far the assimilation into one body should take effect was a question to be decided by the Government. He felt strongly against there being different police forces in the Union, and considered that it would be far better to have all the forces amalgamated into one body, and afterwards, if necessary;, provision could be made for assigning to certain sections of the force certain specific duties, and placing, for instance, the Railway Police under the railway management or some other body under some other authority. It was not exactly essential that complete unification should take place, but the Governor-General was empowered, under the Bill, to take such steps in this direction as might be deemed advisable. The provisions in the present Bill were taken over mainly from the Transvaal and Free State laws, the Free State law being based on that of the Transvaal. The provisions in the Bill were only such as were necessary to be put in a law; there were a number of administrative provisions which would always have to be in the form of regulations, and it would be impossible to have all kinds of minute provisions contained in a law. He hoped that although the regulations had not yet been completed, they would be before the end of the session, and laid on the table of the House. The hon. member proceeded to say that hon. members would see that the Transvaal Board of Officers had been dispensed with, which would be better for military upheavals, but in times of peace, like they had under the Union, it was better left out. There was simply a Board of Inquiry without power to mete out any punishment.

thought that on the main principles of the Bill they would all agree. The different police forces, as they existed in South Africa at present, must be consolidated, and they would like to see that consolidation effected in a satisfactory manner, and that a new police force was started under good auspices, so as to make the force efficient in the discharge of its most important duties. They must not forget that they were dealing with a force of 8,000 men, entailing an annual expenditure of one and a quarter millions; and considering the complexity of the subject he thought the Minister of Justice would have been well advised to accept the proposal of his right hon. friend on the right (Dr. Jameson) and have moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, so that the different conditions might be assimilated and proper rules laid down for guidance in the future. He thought that they were all agreed that it was a very questionable practice to adopt what the Minister had done—the practice of proclamation of regulations. He (the hon. member) did not know whether it was due to the Oriental methods they had heard about—(laughter)—or whether the Minister had not yet thought out the details in order to place them before the House. Why could not the Government specify in the schedule of the Bill the different police bodies which they proposed to incorporate, and the date on which they proposed to do so? Instead of that they had the whole thing left in the most vague manner to the subsequent discretion of the Minister. As to section 2, he could not see why all that should not have been thought out before, and the different bodies scheduled, so that the House would know of what the new police force was going to consist. Under section 3 it would be within the Governor-General’s power to repeal statutes by proclamation, which he hoped the House would not agree to without due consideration. The effect of that was that the Governor-General might by Proclamation include a portion of the present Police Force in the South African Police, and leave out the other portion; but might, if he chose, call upon the men in the existing force to join the new force, without knowing the conditions under which they were expected to serve. Again, a man might have accumulated leave earned, while a member of the South African Constabulary or the Transvaal Town Police, and his right to that leave would cease under the provisions of that Bill. No provision was made in the Bill to allow the men reasonable time to say whether they wished to serve in the new force. Furthermore, there was nothing to show that the men, if they did not wish to join the force, would retain all the privileges and rights of leave which they had earned. Very serious trouble was caused in the Transvaal in 1908 by the Government there proceeding, more or less, in the same manner as the Government were now proceeding with this Bill. The Government of the Transvaal asked the men to sign on before the terms of the Bill had been published, much less before they were discussed and passed by the House. All through the Bill one found that everything was left to the Minister. The Governor-General appointed officers, but the Minister might, if he thought fit, take such steps as to lead to their dismissal, and therefore they had less safeguard in the collective power of the whole Government. That was a matter that should be attended to. With regard to the provision relating to discipline, he was glad to find that the Minister of Justice was of the opinion which he (the speaker) and his colleagues in the Transvaal strongly held when the Transvaal Act was passed with regard to the punishment of officers. It was very satisfactory to find that if the Hon. the Minister of Justice had been a member of the Transvaal Parliament, he would have voted with the Opposition against the Government who were now his colleagues. The provisions in regard to discipline were much more satisfactory than those in the Transvaal Act. He would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be right to define more accurately what he proposed to do. Let them know what forces were going to be incorporated in the new force, and when they were going to be incorporated. Let the men who would compose the force know definitely upon what terms they were going to have a chance of being incorporated. Let them know whether they could retire in full retention of the privileges and rights of leave which they had earned. Do not let them be rushed. If the Police Force of this country had not confidence that they would be properly treated, then it would not be efficient. During the last three years there had been much discontent in the Transvaal Police Force. There had been anxiety as to the conditions upon which the men held their positions. They never knew what was going to happen. They had seen officers removed without any reason for their removal, and they had seen officers appointed whose records did not indicate that they had had police experience. If they were going to have an efficient Police Force, the conditions must be clearly laid down, and the men must have confidence in their officers and the Government and the Minister, who were above these officers. For these reasons, he asked the Minister whether he would not accept the suggestion that all these complicated matters be referred to a Select Committee.

agreed with the last speaker that the matter should be postponed, preferably till after the New Year. His constituents were dissatisfied with the manner in which the police acted towards the public. It was a mistake to put all the police under one Commissioner. The police should be under the local Magistrate. If this were done, many difficulties at present existing would vanish, lit was essential that the people should be able to trust and respect the police; in order to attain that object, the Government should pay the men well. The tendency was to place too much power into the hands of Commissioners; they were empowered to dismiss the men or to punish them in secret, without due inquiry, which happened sometimes merely because they refused to dance to the officers’ tune. In view of the importance of the subject, time should be given to enable members to consider the necessary amendments.

said that clause 2 of the Bill gave the Government power, under Proclamation, to incorporate the whole of the police, which included the Municipal or Borough Police, into the South African Police Force. The existing legislation in Natal gave the right to towns to have their own police. Durban had enjoyed that right for 50 years, and the people of Natal would object to their old rights being taken away by a stroke of the pen. The Bill ought, at any rate, to be referred to a Select Committee, so that the views of the different parts of the Union on the subject might be thoroughly considered. There were many other points to be considered, as, for instance, the question of the granting of pensions and gratuities. If the benefits enjoyed by the police in any part of the country were taken away, it would operate as a great discouragement to good men to join the force. He hoped that the Minister for Justice would allow the Bill to stand over until after Christmas, when members would return from the different Provinces prepared to deal with the Bill according to the views of the people.

welcomed the Bill. He considered the amalgamation of the forces a step in the right direction. He thought, however, the Minister ought to decide now what forces he would bring under the Bill. He hoped the committee stage of the Bill would be deferred until the regulations had been prepared and laid before the House. With regard to the question of pay, there should be a progressive scale, a scale such as would encourage good men to remain in the force. The regulations should lay down what the pay of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men was to be. The position of the Gape Mounted Police today was most unsatisfactory. They found a police inspector in one part of the Colony getting £700 a year, while up North, where living was much dearer, there would be an inspector getting a salary of £375. If it was not made worth while for a man to remain in the police, the result would be that they would only be able to recruit the force from the riff-raff off the street. It took years to convert the raw material into an efficient policeman, and if a progressive scale was not held out as an inducement to that man, he would not remain in the force, but would go elsewhere, where he could earn better pay, as soon as he had an opportunity. That meant the continual recruiting of raw material. The position of every man should be defined when he entered-the force, and that could only be done by putting all those things clearly in the regulations. In the scheme of retrenchment of the Gape Mounted Police carried out by the late Gape Parliament some time back, officers were reduced to the rank of non-commissioned officers, and that caused discontent right through the country, and was a very cruel blow. He hoped the position of the police was going to be so clearly established in the scheme of amalgamation that any repetition of that sort of thing would be impossible. Another question was: what was going to be the relation of the police to the rest of the service? After a certain length of service, the man in the police force should be able to come on to the fixed establishment; he should get a pension; and he should be allowed to contribute to the pension fund. He should enjoy the same privileges in that respect as the ordinary clerk in the public service. It was the duty of the House to see that everything connected with the police force was placed on an absolutely sound basis, so that officers non-commissioned officers, and men would know exactly where they stood. He would draw the attention of the Minister for Justice to another matter. In the Cape Police the old system was altered, and the men had now to purchase their own horses. That was a good system in a place where there was no horse-sickness, but in a constituency like his, where 70 or 80 per cent, of the horses were swept off by horse-sickness, and in parts of the Transvaal, it was not fair on the men, and that was a matter that should be taken into consideration. He hoped that such a regulation would not be introduced in connection with the Northern Territories, where horse-sickness was severe. With regard to promotion, he would like to see the system of promotion clearly established. There was no part of the service where there was so much favouritism shown as in the police force. He knew of men, good men, who, because they had not cringed to those in authority over them, had been overlooked, and other men promoted over their heads. He hoped that a proper system of promotion would be laid down, and that men would be promoted, not necessarily according to length of service, but according to merit and the work they had done. The new police force, he trusted, was not going to be a military force as well. It was, of course, necessary that the men should have a certain amount of drilling, but the man the farmer wanted was the man who had the bump of locality, the man who could find his way about, who could detect a spoor, and who could keep to it, and the man who could run down the criminal. He earnestly hoped the spirit of militarism would be kept out of the force, that the very best men would be selected, and that the Government would not allow the question of money to stand in the way of obtaining a highly efficient and contented police force (Hear, hear.)

said that to his mind the way the Minister for Justice proposed to deal with the matter was not the best one. He considered the Government should make up their mind to be model employers. In the treatment of their servants they should be an example to every other employer throughout the country, and he thought it would be a good thing to start with the police force. The police had extraordinary duties to perform. Of all the servants employed by the Government there were none whose responsibilities were greater or whose work was more trying than that of the police, and the conditions under which they worked should be such as to maintain contentment amongst the men. That all was not well with the police force even now there could be no doubt. In the Transvaal police alone 151 men had left for various causes, or had been discharged in the short period of five months. In 1908, when the Transvaal Police Bill was introduced, the result of the uncertainty created by that Bill was that no less than 303 men were driven out of the force. There was an attempt made in the Transvaal House of Assembly by a Minister who was no longer a Minister to make it appear that those men had gone because their characters were bad. That was adding insult to injury with a vengeance. When the returns called for giving the characters of those men who had left the force were furnished it was found that out of the 303 men who had left only 10 had bad characters and seven were doubtful. The Minister of Justice had to deal with a number of conditions, or a number of sets of conditions, in the Union, which were not alike. The C.M.P. were, he thought, considered with feelings of regard by the people in the Cape Province, and in Natal he believed it was the same with regard to the police there; in the Orange Free State he did not know what the position was, but in the Transvaal it was not the same, whether it was because the police were constantly coming and going because of the way in which they were handled, or not, he did not know. The hon. member spoke strongly in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee advocated by other hon. members Certain things there were which could be dealt with by regulations, but he thought that they ought to stop short of altering the whole manner of the men’s service, and he could not imagine any Minister with a proper sense of responsibility who was willing to take upon himself the responsibility of altering an Act of Parliament fay regulations. To have one force under one responsible head was a good proposal, but the difficulty was in carrying it out, to faring about the desired result, and not to spoil the men. He hoped that a Select Committee would be appointed, and that the police themselves were represented on it in some way— (hear, hear)—seeing that they had a voice in that matter. What did they know about the police, and all the conditions, except in so far as an individual member in the House might get up and say that the police of a certain place wanted this or that?

who agreed with what other hon. members had said, said that in any Consolidated force such as the Bill proposed to bring about a number of local advantages were swept away. If a Select Committee were appointed and went into the whole matter, jangling and troubles in the force would be avoided which were more due to misunderstanding than anything else. Dealing with some of the sections of the Bill, he thought clause 19 contained a bad principle, because disciplinary offences, with which it dealt, were mere technical offences, and they did not want to sentence a man to imprisonment for that. He was more than delighted to hear from the front Opposition bench that the Oriental despotism so much liked by the Minister for the Interior was resented by the pillars of toleration that sit on those benches.

said he could support the main provisions of the Bill. The Transvaal police system had to a large extent been unsatisfactory. If there was anything in complaints that had reached him it would appear that policemen simply depended on the Commissioner’s tender mercies. When a poor constable was unjustly treated he had the choice between remaining silent or being “kicked out.” The police should be commanded by the magistrates. Expensive officers, who had nothing to do except to drive around in Government conveyances, should be abolished. In the Transvaal a number of special police were being employed in connection with East Coast fever. They were mostly men, bred and born on farms, who knew nothing about discipline. They were placed under a district commandant, however, were bound to submit to discipline, had to learn how to salute their superiors, etc. He advocated placing these men under the magistrates.

thought the Bill must give a good deal of anxiety to many. He would like to go further than the previous speakers, and ask the Minister to postpone the discussion altogether until after the recess, or else send it to a Select Committee. He represented a large body of police, and did not know what their desire was, or how their privileges might be interfered with by the Bill. Large bodies of the Natal Police had been engaged on special terms, and it was now proposed to put them in the position of having those terms interfered with, and in a position which they never anticipated. He hoped the Minister would give an opportunity to those concerned to study the question. They had a superannuation fund and there were many points with which hon. members should make themselves familiar before they dealt with a subject so large as the policing of a vast sub-continent such as this. They might destroy that esprit de corps which existed in the forces. He was not sure whether it would not be better to postpone the whole question for another year.

also spoke of the necessity of delaying the matter, and urged that the opinion of those most interested should be obtained. He said that extraordinary power was asked for in the Bill, and contended that no private employer would be allowed to employ workmen on conditions such as were laid down in the Bill.

referred to the trouble that had taken place in the Transvaal in consequence of the last Police Act. He said that that Act created much unrest amongst the members of the police force, and the Prime Minister then informed the opposition that if they had come to him beforehand he would certainly have gone into the matter and done his best to rectify these points in the Bill which were objected to. The Opposition that day had given the Minister of Justice warning, and he could not blame them if there was unrest in the future. He pointed out that eight Commissioners had been appointed in the last ten years. He thought that the regulations should have been properly published. The House should know the conditions and regulations. They were building up a new force in the country, and it was only right and fair that the regulations, or, at any rate, the framework of the regulations, should have been outlined when the Minister introduced the measure. The whole country was affected in regard to this Police Bill, especially the large industrial centres in the Transvaal. He did not think that the Bill should be passed in its present form. If it were the Government would only be laying up trouble for itself, and the unrest which would follow would destroy the whole efficiency of the police force upon which the good order of the country depended.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that a great deal of new matter was being introduced in the Bill. On the question of the grading of the police there had been instances of men being obliged to take positions inferior to those which they formerly occupied. He knew of a case in which a sub-inspector bad been obliged to take the post of sergeant, and had been kept in that position for four years. He agreed that it was desirable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The police would be called upon to alter their status, and they should have time to consider the position, and to see how it would affect them. He thought also the Magistrates would be able to give them assistance in the matter. The Magistrates’ relations with the police would have to be determined. Important alterations were contemplated by the Bill in this and other particulars, and he thought it was advisable to postpone consideration of the Bill until after the recess. Then they would be able to get much information that would be helpful, and above all they would be able to ascertain the views of the men who were most affected by the proposed changes.

hoped the Minister would reconsider the position after having heard the views of members from all four Provinces of the Union, and on both sides of the House. The Minister should be convinced that this was not taken up as a party question. In conclusion, the hon. member hoped that the fullest inquiry would be made.

who also hoped that an inquiry would be made, said that he was glad the hon. member opposite had drawn attention to the matter of the de-grading of police officers in the Cape, owing to the depression, and in a great many instances, he said, the men had not been put on their old footing or rank, although the Province was now in a better financial position than it had been. These men were labouring under a sense of great injustice, and he hoped that the Minister of Justice would see to these matters. Dealing with the Cape Mounted Police, he said he believed these men should be a semi-military force, because, if it were, one got a better class of man, and no country could possess a better police force than the one in question a (Cheers.)

referred to the conditions of the police force in the Transvaal, and to the growing trade in illicit liquor there. It was their duty to see to these matters, and the wisdom of the House was not concentrated in the Minister of Justice. (Laughter.)

said he would like to remind the Prime Minister that when he introduced the Bill into the Transvaal Parliament, he said they wanted to establish a police force as perfect as possible. They wanted one that would, at present as well as in the future, have the support of both sides of the House. They had a force which deserved the admiration of both sides of the House.

Hear, hear.

I was addressing the Premier, not you.

Will the hon. member address the Speaker. (Laughter.)

I beg the Speaker’s pardon. I meant through the Speaker. (Loud laughter.) Proceeding, he said the conditions of the men in the Transvaal Police Force were, by a long way, unsatisfactory. They (the hon. members) understood that if this Bill was passed on anything like the lines they had before them, there would be grave and extreme dissatisfaction throughout the Police Force, and surely the Minister for Justice would not allow that. He hoped the matter would go to a Select Committee, so that it could be inquired into.

said he was going to give the Minister for Justice what he thought would be a sound reason for his accepting the suggestion which had come from, both sides of the House, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, not at this stage perhaps, but later. He quite understood that the Minister would like to take the first stage, which involved the principle, and with that principle he did not think any member on either side of the House would disagree. The main reason that he had for suggesting it was that in 1878 the old Cape House passed a measure which really took away nobody’s rights, but changed a Police Force from one name to another. It caused a great disturbance, which lasted for a long time. He thought it would be wise if the Minister for Justice would announce his intention of taking the suggestion. Their objects were to assist the Government and the Minister of Justice wherever possible, and especially when consolidating and strengthening laws.

said he might say at once that in this law, as in all other Bills which they would bring before the House, he had only one object in view, and that was to make as good daws as was possible. He had no intention to force this Bill through, but wanted to have a discussion on the second reading, to see what both sides of the House thought of it. He thought with them that if there was any law which required to be carefully considered, it was that relating to the Police Force, because he always maintained, and would do, that in the whole State they could not get another body together on whom the whole Union depended so much as on this. (Hear, hear.) One of the reasons was that, unless they had a Police Force contented, they could never get that efficiency which was necessary. He wanted a Police Force in full harmony and sympathy with the people of South Africa. He assured Hon. members that if they heard the little complaints constantly brought to him, such as of the force not being identified with the people in the districts, they would feel with him in trying to get a law which would suit the police, which made them happy, and the people happy also. He had listened to the members on both sides of the House, and he wished simply to warn them that they must not have too high expectations. He had heard members mention the following subjects as showing why they should not leave too much to regulation: pay, promotion, purchase of horses, that it should not be a military force, grading, and the position that the Police Force is to have. He would at once say that there was not one of them that could be dealt with by law. They had to be dealt with by regulations. Those were questions which would have to be inquired into very carefully. He wished to say that the Bill as it stood was drawn up by a body of police officials, whom he called together, and who went very carefully into the whole question. But he quite agreed that there might be points which might be usefully discussed by a Select Committee. As he had stated, all he wanted was a good law; he had not left out anything, because of any whim on his part. He wished to assure hon. members that it was not contemplated that any right whatever, be it in the matter of pay or of leave, should be taken away from the men, and if there was anything in the law that gave that impression, then he should be only too glad to have an amendment. When the second reading had been passed, he would be pleased to refer the matter to a Select Committee. (Opposition cheers.)

The motion for the second reading was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

I shall now move, as an unopposed motion, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of seven members. The committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

then gave notice to move the names of the members to comprise the committee.

moved the second reading of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Bill. He said that the first principle which the Bill proposed to define and regulate was the privilege of free speech, and the second was the privilege of free publication of all proceedings of Parliament. No action whatever could be taken in connection with anything that took place in Parliament, and was published under the official authority of the House. That privilege overrode every other consideration, but hon. members would see that there was a subsidiary privilege to the extent that extracts and condensed reports could be published of what transpired in Parliament so long as they were bona fide. All questions of privilege were taken away from the jurisdiction of the Law Courts, and no Law Court would be asked to adjudicate upon any matter, or would be allowed to adjudicate upon any matter which touched upon the privileges of Parliament. The House would inquire into any matter of privilege, in order to see what steps may be taken, and what punishment should be inflicted. If certain acts were committed they were declared in section 10 of the Bill to be contempts of Parliament. There was a long list, but he thought they were all necessary for the dignity of Parliament—disobedience of any order of the House for the attendance of witnesses or production of papers, refusal to answer any lawful questions before Parliament, or a committee, receipt of any bribe by a member, any assault or obstruction, or the sending of any threatening letter to a member of Parliament, any disturbance in the House or the vicinity, any tampering with witnesses. Proceedings could be taken to punish the culprit for any such indignity offered to Parliament. It was laid down in this Bill that there were two ways in which this procedure for infringing the dignity of Parliament may be taken. In the first place the House concerned may take a resolution upon which Mr. Speaker would issue a warrant for the arrest of the culprit, and he might be brought to the bar of the House, and he might then be dealt with by Parliament or the House concerned. It was also possible for the House to resolve that instructions be given to the Attorney-General of the Province concerned, and the Attorney-General would then bake proceedings in the law courts, and prosecute. These were the main privileges of Parliament. It was the procedure according to the Bill by which Parliament would assert its privileges, and if this procedure were followed, there could be no doubt that the honour and dignity of Parliament would be suitably recognised on all occasions.

said he did not think any opposition would be offered to the Bill from that side of the House, and it seemed that there was very little in the Bill that called for criticism, but there was one point to which he should like to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior, and that was that in a similar Bill, which was passed through the late Transvaal Parliament by a Government of which the Minister was a member, there was a certain section dealing not so much with the powers and privileges of Parliament, but with certain obligations which were laid down by Parliament, i.e., that any members who were pecuniarily interested in any contract or bargain that was before the House were required to make disclosure of that fact. He did not find any provision of that kind in the Bill before the House. He would like to know from the Minister of the Interior whether it was his intention to make any provision of that kind at all in this Bill, or any other Bill which he might bring before them. It seemed to him (Mr. Duncan) that something of the kind was desirable.

said that the Minister of the Interior had sketched out the Course which would be pursued if anybody did anything that he ought not to do to that House, but in clause 2 it was distinctly laid down that he could not be so tried. In the Dutch copy of the Bill which he had—and which, by the way, would be valid if signed by the Governor— there was not a word giving Parliament the power to deal with a matter of this kind.

said he was glad that the hon. member (Dr. Watkins) was so jealous of the correct translation. (Laughter.) He had not turned his attention to this point, but he had no doubt that it would be very carefully scrutinised now that attention had been drawn to it. With regard to the matter which had been raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg, viz., the disclosure of contracts by any member of Parliament, he had left the matter out of this Bill, in the first place, because it was not in the Cape Act, and, as far as possible, he liked to follow the Cape lines in these matters. (Laughter.) They had also the admonition of the Constitution on the matter which, in the absence of any express provision of that House, said that the procedure should be followed. He did not find any similar provision in the Cape law, and he did not think a case had been made out for inserting the long, cumbrous provision which the Transvaal legislators, in their zeal, inserted in the Transvaal Act. Under the Civil Service Act, it was necessary that every tender should be scrutinised by an impartial Board, and if any member of the House tendered, and his tender was passed unbeknown to the Board, it seemed to him that there was very little chance of a miscarriage of justice taking place. Under these circumstances, he did not think there was any necessity here to repeat the long-winded and uneffective provision of the Transvaal Act in this connection.

referred to clause 11. It appeared, he said, that the House was going to take to itself the power to inflict a fine up to £100 on any person who committed contempt, and to call upon the Speaker to issue a warrant in the event of the offender not paying the fine. Surely, they would not adopt this old and obsolete law, which was more calculated to bring the House into contempt than the offender.

hoped the Minister of Justice, before the Bill came into committee, would consider the question of having some clause drafted whereby it would be impossible for a member of Parliament to use his voice or his vote in that House in furtherance of an object in which he was directly and pecuniarily interested. If there was one thing more objectionable than another, it was that a member should use arguments in favour of matters in which, unknown to other members, he was interested. It was important, he thought, that such a provision should be included in the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for the committee stage on Friday.

moved after “cousins” to omit all the words to the end of paragraph (c). He said his object was to prohibit entirely the intermarriage of cousins. It was true that the Roman-Dutch law allowed the marriage of cousins, but the Roman-Dutch law also prohibited the marriage of adulterers, while there was a provision here to legalise such marriages. They were now, of course, living in different times to those for which the Roman-Dutch law was intended to provide, and they could improve on the Roman-Dutch law in these particulars. Who was to lay down the standard of physical fitness? One could not get any body of men to do it; one would give a certificate where another would refuse it. There was no doubt—it had been scientifically proved—that intermarriage of people closely related, like cousins, tended to accentuate bodily and mental ailments, and the only safeguard was to prevent those people from intermarrying.

related how, a few days after he had been admitted to the Bar, he had been asked for his opinion about a question dealing with marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and bow he had looked up the old Free State’s laws dealing with marriage. The hon. member praised these laws, and said that in them he found the very question which had been raised by the hon. member for Potehefstroom (Mr. Neser), and he found that the Hon. the Minister of the Interior in introducing the present Bill had practically taken over clause 2 of the Free State Marriage Law. If the hon. member would look up the clause he would find that the Minister of the Interior had done all he could to prevent the marriage of double cousins; and that he had done everything for the preservation of a strong, healthy, robust nation in South Africa. He (the hon. member) could not quite see, however, why the Minister had added the proviso to that clause. He could not possibly see how it tended to the robustness, the healthiness, or the strength of any race to prevent the marriage between a widower and—

said that the hon. member read the section incorrectly.

thought that he had read the section correctly; but added that if read rapidly it was something like a Chinese puzale, and if one were not careful, one might easily— as his hon. friend (Mr. Struben) said— marry the wrong woman. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to refer to the prejudice existing in England against marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and said that when he read that second subsection, he thought that there was still a tinge of that prejudice in the mind of the Minister of the Interior; or what had probably happened was that he had taken that section over from some other old law. (Laughter.) He thought that the time had come in South Africa for them to give a lead in that matter, and to say that so long as marriage did not interfere with their ideas of what was good for the race they should allow it. The prohibition in the sub-section had nothing to do with blood relations. It meant, as he read it, that they prevented a sister from looking after her own step-sister’s children.

Several hon. members disagreed.

advised them to read the section again carefully.

moved to delete the words “or relationship by marriage” in lines 21 and 22, and to omit all the words after the word “degrees,” in line 39.

pointed out that the second amendment had been moved by Mr. Botha (Bloemfontein). It was therefore withdrawn.

said the words, “relationship by marriage,” clearly meant marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and the Minister clearly intended that a man should be allowed to marry his deceased wife’s sister, and a woman her deceased—

Wife’s sister. (Laughter.)

The hon. members are taking the humorous side of it, but I appeal to the House to take the serious view. Continuing, he said that, the Minister had provided that cousins who were doubly related—related on the paternal and maternal sides—should not to allowed to marry, although cousins were allowed to marry, feeling that the consanguinity was strengthened by being double cousins. But they were no more blood relations than in the case alluded to in the last two lines of the clause. He thought that the Minister had been led away by the superficial or seeming difference.

moved to omit all the clause in sub-section (c), commencing with “between cousins.” He did so, he said, for very substantial reasons —for the strengthening of the race. No less a person than Mr. A. J. Balfour had said chat it was this question that accounted for the decadence of the English race. That was an opinion much held, but it was due to ignorance. Proceeding, he quoted Professor Darwin and several other authorities in support of his contention, and said that he wished to show that, according to up-to-date science, blood-relationship had nothing to do with the matter. It was purely a question of physical health. He asked that this question might be looked upon as a very serious one. They had any amount of evidence in the streets here of the folly in the past. There was any amount. Hon. members passed Bills dealing with ostriches and mules, and men paid £200 for a canary, and more than that for an ox or a horse, but when it came to a human being, any human male would do for a father, and any human female would do for a mother. (Laughter.) This was a national question, and he held that they were under a moral obligation to deal with the matter, and have the reference to cousins wiped out.

asked what the position was in regard to step-parents? There was no blood relationship there, and still the House would be against a person marrying his step-mother or her step-father. There was certainly some difficulty in the matter. He wished to point out that the Bill was similar to the law which prevailed in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and although the Bill, if it were passed into law, would not inflict any hardship upon persons living in the Northern Provinces, it was possible that the provision in sub-section (c) of section 2 might inflict a hardship upon cousins in the Gape Province. He moved to add the following words at the end of subsection (c) of section 2: “But this provision shall not apply to persons who notify the Minister of the Interior before the date of the coming in force of this Act that they are betrothed.”

said that it was because this matter went to the fundamental roots of society that he rose specially to support the hon. member for Potchefstroom in trying to induce this House to prohibit marriages between cousins. He hoped the House would turn a deaf ear to the views which had been expressed by the hon. member for Roodepoort. He thought that in this matter they should be guided by the experience of this country, and he would ask the hon. members, who belonged to a different race from his own, to think what had happened even amongst their own people. He believed that in the back veld of this country there was an alarming proportion of degenerates owing to the intermarrying of consanguineous people. He was talking now of what he heard from those who were practising his profession in remote parts of the country. One of the results of Union, he thought, would be the intermarrying of the races, and he believed that the result of such intermarrying would be an improvement of either race. He thought this intermarrying, not of cousins, but of strangers, would go to solve the difficulties of his hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, in regard to the language question.

agreed that excessive inbreeding led to evil results. In the Transvaal law of old there had been a prohibition against cousins marrying. His experience as a cattle breeder had taught him that, if he wished to maintain the quality of his stock, it was necessary constantly to introduce new blood. If the amendment were agreed to, however, it would cause a lot of inconvenience. The people were not in favour of it, and he trusted that it would be rejected.

said that he could assure the hon. member for Denver that the remarks of the hon. member for Roodepoort had not fallen Upon deaf ears, because he agreed with the remarks of the hon. member (Dr. Haggar). He fully agreed with the hon. member, and he thought too much was being assumed in connection with this matter, especially in the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein. It seemed that that hon. member assumed a great deal of what science did not teach. Science did not teach that consanguineous marriages were injurious. He (Mr. Maasdorp) also rose for the purpose of asking the Minister of the Interior what were the reasons for having brought in this Bill, with its provisions with reference to the marriage of cousins. As he understood it, the law, as it existed in the Transvaal and the Orange Free ‘State, was as it was propose in this Bill, but it was not so in Natal and the Gape Province. He considered that it was a dangerous thing to come and ask them to alter this law of the Cape Province and Natal, which had a Larger white population than the other two Provinces, when the people of those Provinces had not had an opportunity of expressing any opinion upon it. Had the ’people of the Gape Province asked for such a law? He remembered that once a Bill was before the Gape Parliament in reference to the marriage of cousins, and it was thrown out. He thought they should proceed cautiously, and wait for the people to ask for a law of this kind. It was all very well in theory to say, as the hon. member for Roodepoort (Dr. Haggar) had said, that the marriage of unfit, persons should be forbidden; but how were they going to set about it? It was a very dangerous thing. Who were going to be the judges as to whether people were fit? Was it to be the medical faculty? If so, he did not think it would be quite safe, because doctors did not always agree, and very often they made serious mistakes. He would be very glad if this clause were expunged altogether from the Act.

said it was a curious thing that in the Transvaal, from which they had had so much complaint on this subject, they had this law. Didn’t it show that it was not a question of legislation; that it was rather a question of locality; that where people could not travel and were isolated, these things took place? They must look for the remedy not in legislation. They must look to education and to the improved means of travel there were now. No man was obliged to marry his cousin nowadays because there was no one else. If the sentiment of the people were against it, this sort of thing would not take place. If they passed such a law as this, people could evade it by going outside the Union to get married. He would like to see this section about cousins expunged. It was no good to have a law which was against the sentiment of the people. This was a serious question. It was interfering with the social habits of the people, and he hoped the Minister of the Interior could see his way to take out the clause. Apparently it had not worked well in the Transvaal; it had not prevented the evils complained of there.

said he did not believe that in a civilised community a law of this description was against the sentiment of the people. If a law of this kind was unable to prevent these marriages it did not follow that they should not have such a law on the Statute-book. He thought the clause, as it stood in the Bill, would meet the case; the amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Neser), in his opinion, went too far. He hoped to see the Bill pass in the form in which it had been introduced by the Hon. the Minister of the Interior.

said that in listening to that debate he wondered why that clause had been put in; and he entirely agreed with the right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. Marriman) that the Cape Act had worked well, and he could not understand what the object was in going in for these restrictions, for once they did, he did not see where the line was to be drawn. Why should they say that one particular kind of cousin should be allowed to marry, and debar other cousins from marrying? He agreed with the right hon. gentleman that that matter was one of sentiment, and should be left to the common-sense of the people, unhampered by such restrictions.

said that no one who kept his eyes open could deny that the results of marriages between cousins was often harmful, especially as between double cousins. In fact, some went as far as to say that it was as bad as a marriage between a brother and sister. No one who knew the Afrikander nation well could gainsay that often the most deplorable results followed such marriages between cousins, and, as a consequence, they saw idiotic children, or those whose mental capacity was weak, while physically they were poor. Experience was their best teacher. He supported the Bill as it stood.

said the Bill affected the status of the people, and he was surprised to note the number of amendments to the clause. The Bill was based on existing legislation, and if as much as a single line were altered, the context would be spoilt. If the member for Potchefstroom’s amendment were carried hon. members would certainly be stoned on returning to their constituencies!

The hon. member was continuing the debate when the electric light suddenly went out, leaving the hall in utter darkness.

All right, go on. (Laughter.)

moved that progress be reported, and leave be asked to sit again on Wednesday, and this was agreed to.

from occupants of the farm Leeuwkop, Kenhardt, Cape Colony, praying the House to allot, it to the Dutch Reformed Church Mission, Kenhardt.

from T. H. Dawe, a fitter, Salt River Railway Works,

from R. J. Paynter, turner, Salt River Railway Works.

from T. Chance, chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from T. H. Morgan, clerk in the South African Railways.

from J. N. Schietekat, assistant fitter, Salt River Railway Works.

from S. J. Learey, machinist, Salt River Railway Works.

from J. C. Faure, widow of the late J. C. Faure, Resident Magistrate for Cape Town.

from C. L. Gantz, teacher in the Coloured Mission School, Beaufort West.

from P. Tyanzashe, a retired native schoolmaster, King William’s Town.

from J. V. Howat, postmaster, Paarl.

from J. C. Niddrie, a chargeman, Salt River Railway Works.

from S. S. Ponder, accounting clerk, Forest Department, Cape Town.

from J. C. Cawcutt, Chief Messenger, Deeds Registry, Cape Town.

railway between Jansenville and Klipplaat Junction.

for repeal of Ordinance No. 10 of 1903 (Free State), imposing annual licences on advocates.

to consider the advisability of acquiring 250 morgen of land at Kuruman, belonging to the London Mission Society, for the purpose of establishing a land settlement (two petitions).

railway from Taungs Siding, via Rietfontein diamond mines, to Kuruman.

from Richard Tanfield, Public Service, Cape.

Taungs, reduction of quitrent.

as chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on production of an official Hansard, asking for leave to confer with a similar committee of the Senate.

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior, leave was granted.

Copies of Proclamations and Government notices published by the Colonial Secretary’s Department, September 24, 1909—May 30, 1910, Cape.

Copies of Proclamations and Government notices, covering regulations published, under various School Board Acts, September 24, 1909, to May 30, 1910.

as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands as follows: First report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, appointed by Orders of the House of Assembly, dated the 7th and 8th November, 1910, to consider and report upon all recommendations for the disposal of Crown lands, or of servitudes thereon, or conditions connected therewith, as may be submitted by the Government under the provisions of any Act or law requiring Parliamentary approval; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, to consist of nine members, and that the following be members of the committee, viz.: the Minister of Education, Colonel Crewe, Mr. Vosloo, the Minister of Landis, Messrs. Becker, King, Oliver, Wessels, and Dr. Watkins.

Your committee beg to report that they have had under consideration the papers and correspondence referred to them, and beg to recommend the grants, etc., of land, as set forth in the accompanying schedule, viz.: (1) Grant, for school purposes, at Bodiam, Peddle; (2) grant, for church purposes, at Douglas; (3) grant, for church purposes, at Berlin, King William’s Town; (4) grant, for church purposes, at Kuruman; (5) grant of garden lot, Knappe Hope Mission Station, King William’s Town; (6) transfer, for church purposes, at Griquatown; (7) grant, for church purposes, at Campbell; (8) grant, for church purposes, at Hlobo, Nqamakwe; (9) grant, for church and school purposes, at Zangokwe, Queen’s Town; (10) grant, for parsonage, at Kehardt; (11) grant, for trading site, at Mhlahlane, Nqamakwe; (12) grant, for public cemetery, at Bizana; (13) grants, for church and school purposes, at Ludondolo and Esingumeni, Idutywa; (14) grant, for church and school purposes, at Ceguana; (15) grant, for public cemetery, at Nqamakwe (16) sales, near King’s Cross Township, King William’s Town; (17) grant, for church purposes, on farm Uitkyk, Wode-House; (18) grant, for public cemetery, at Hoedjes Bay, Malmesbury; (19) grant, as fishing site, at Gericke Point, George; (20) grant, for public library, at Port St. John’s; (21) leasee, to squatters, on Middelvlei, Caledon; (22) grant, for agricultural show-ground, at Worcester.

moved, as an unopposed motion, seconded by My. J.H. SCHOEMAN (Oudtshoorn) that the schedule be printed, and that the report be considered in committee on Monday.

Agreed to.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the Government will publish the accounts of the first year’s working of the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies; (2) whether it is a fact that the salaries of the manager and saff during the first year’s working were paid by the Agricultural Department, and, if so, whether the amount so expended has been refunded; (3) what rent the Central Agency pays to the South African Railways for the storage of maize at railway stations; (4) to what extent is the credit of the Land Bank involved in any contracts at present being carried out by the agency; and (5) whether the Central Agency at the present time as indebted to (a) the Land Bank, and (b) the Government, and, if so, for how much?

The accounts for the first year’s working of the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies will be published in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the Transvaal accounts. (2) The salaries of the manager and the staff of the Central Agency during the first year’s working were paid by the Agricultural Department. Part of the amount so expended has been refunded. (3) Co-operative Societies erect their own stores, for the sites of which they pay the South African Railways 10s. per month. (4) The credit of the Land Bank is involved to the extent of £53,533 in respect of guarantees for the due performance of certain contracts entered into by the Central Agency acting on behalf of Co-operative Societies. Portion of the contracts has already been executed, and the quantities of mealies required to complete the contracts are actually in the possession of societies. (5) The Central Agency is not at the present time indebted to the Land Bank. It owes the Government £995 on account of the first year’s working expenses.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether it is a fact that many branch telegraph and telephone lines are now not constructed on account of applying the expensive method of using iron instead of South African grown eucalyptus, or gum poles, and, if so, whether he will give this matter his careful consideration with a view to avoiding any further delays?

replied that wooden poles were used where they were easily obtainable, but where they were not, it came out cheaper to use iron poles.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that goods carried by rail from Lourenoo Marques to Enmelo have remained on the road for more than 14 days, and that many of the goods have been stolen in transit, causing much inconvenience and loss to the public (2) whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted with a view of having this state of affairs remedied; and (3) whether measures will be taken to improve the conditions of traffic on the line between Machadodorp and Ermelo, especially with regard to the accommodation of first-class passengers.

(1) He had made an investigation, and could give the hon. member the assurance that goods had not been in transit longer than 14 days, although there had been one case in which the goods had been on the road for 14 days, which was long enough or too long. The time generally taken was seven days, and sometimes four. (2) Instructions had been given that the matter should be looked into. (3) The attention of the Government had been drawn to the matter, to see whether anything could be done.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours when the Government intend to proceed With the construction of the railway between Belmont and Douglas, sanctioned by Act No. 34 of 1906 (Cape)?

My hon. friend has already asked me that question before, and I am afraid that I must give him the same answer. (Laughter.) The Government will take into consideration whether it will ask the authority of Parliament for the further construction of railways, and the matter the hon. member is inquiring about will receive due consideration when the subject comes under discussion; therefore I ask my hon. friend to wait a little longer. I hope he won’t be disappointed. (Laughter.)

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that the contracts for next year’s supplies of coal for working the Union Railways have been let, and, if so, what tenders were sent in, and were they approved by the Railway Board; (2) whether it is the intention of Government to take the railway supplies of coal for 1911 from the Transvaal and Cape Collieries to the exclusion of the Natal coal mines, except in one instance in which a contract arranged by the late Natal Government for the first six months in next year was already in existence, and in what manner and for what reasons has the latter been varied; and (3) what is the most favourable and what the highest price which has been quoted by the Cape collieries for next year’s railway contract, and is ne prepared to explain in what respect the Government are prepared to justify the placing of orders for coal for railway use with the Cape collieries in view of the criticism against Cape coal contained in the report of the late General Manager of the Cape Government Railways, Mr. T. S. McEwen, for the year 1900, at page 11?

(1) No. (2) The question of coal contracts is now under consideration. (3) The Railway Board is in favour of giving 12s. a ton for Cape coal for a certain amount, and the question will arise in connection with that, whether it is exactly in accordance with “business principles.” I see the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) shaking his head, and if it is not on business principles, the Board will probably make a recommendation to this Parliament as to the future. I hope that it will be done during the present session, and the question will then arise as to what can be done to foster Colonial industry, but I am afraid that if it is dome as a general principle it will not be on “business principles,” but “otherwise.” (Laughter.)

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he is aware of the difficulties attending the moving of small stock across the borders of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and that clean animals are dipped at the ports of entry; and, if so (2), whether he is talking measures to ensure that clean sheep and goats may, on the certificate of an inspector, be freely moved across the borders?

(1) (a) The hon. member’s question is not clear as to what particular conditions in Government Notice No. 305 of 1910 he refers. Presumably he alludes to the prohibition on the movement of cattle for slaughter purposes. The Government Notice in question allowed the movement of cattle required for immediate slaughter for the supply of meat for consumption in Natal only. It was brought to the notice of the Government that not permitting the slaughter of cattle for consumption in any other Province was seriously affecting the meat supply of Johannesburg, and traders proposed to import meat unless the prohibition on consumption outside Natal was withdrawn. To show that this was no idle threat is evidenced by the fact that frozen meat from Australia is now being imported for the Johannesburg mines. It was because of these representations that the Government amended Notice 305, by allowing the movement of cattle for the supply of meat outside of Natal as well. (to) It is not the intention of the Government to again issue regulations in terms of the notice mentioned. (2) It has already been announced in the Governor’s Speech that the Government intends introducing legislation to deal with diseases of stack. In the Bill in question provision is made for the immediate reporting of deaths of cattle and the taking and forwarding of blood smears.

asked the Minister of Lands: Whether it is a fact that the Government has forbidden prospecting for minerals in certain of the North-western districts of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, and, if so, why?

The Government has prohibited prospecting on certain farms advertised for disposal by sale, lease, or selection, and on certain areas such as the Game Reserves in Namaqualand and Bechuanaland. The reason for the prohibition in the case of farms advertised for disposal is that on former occasions the Government was obliged to withdraw farms from sale at the last moment, owing to their having been pegged just before sale under prospecting licence; such withdrawal caused dissatisfaction and expense to intending purchasers. This prohibition does not, of course, affect the rights of persons who may have pegged out prospecting areas prior to the date of the prohibition, if they can substantiate their claim. The prohibition in the Game Reserves is necessary if the object and intention of the Reserves is to be attained.

asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the confusion in, and consequent hampering of, trade that exists in the Union, owing to the non-uniformity of the adulteration laws in the Union, and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present session, for the purpose of consolidating the adulteration laws?

said it was understood that the Government bad the matter of introducing such uniform legislation under consideration, but it, would not be possible to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether he has received a petition from the Medical Council requesting uniform medical legislation for the whole of the Union; (2) whether he intends to introduce such a measure during the present session; and, if so, (3) whether the Bill will be published in time for the public to make itself acquainted with its contents?