from W. G. Glennie, Examining Officer, Customs Department, Cape Town.

from J. E. Robertson, late Civil Commissioner, Cape.

Master of the Supreme Court, Cape Town, 1908; Master of the Supreme Court, Cape Town, 1909; Commissioner of the Cape Mounted Police, 1909; Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town, King William’s Town. Kimberley, and Vryburg, 1909.

appointed the Minister of Finance to act as a member of the Printing Committee, during the absence of the Minister of the Interior.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

said that as this was the last occasion on which they would have the opportunity of referring to matters connected with finance before they parted, he did not think he would be out of place if he said a few words in regard to a matter that cropped up the other evening, when he was, unfortuntunately, not in the House, and which, he thought, deserved rather more careful attention than it seemed to have received at the hands of the House. He referred, of course, to the fact, which came as a shock to hon. members on both sides, that the Government, without any authority whatever from any Legislature, signed contracts—

Not the Government; not this Government.

Well, I accept the correction; but some Government has signed contracts for a sum upwards of a million for buildings without any authority whatever. Continuing, the hon. member said he was surprised chat the Minister of Finance, owing to a lapse of memory, did not inform the House when he was delivering his Budget speech of this liability which rested upon the Union; but the point he (Mr. Merriman) wished to urge was the fact that these contracts had been entered into without any authority from any Legislature. Now, Parliament was jealous—and rightly jealous—of any attempt on the part of Government—whatever Government it might be—to spend money without the authority of Parliament. And he said rightly jealous, because, as long as they adhered to that principle, they were on something like firm ground, but when they once departed from that firm ground, they would soon find themselves in a morass of some kind or another. If they once countenanced, by assenting to it in any way, the dootrine that any Government, whatever majority it might have, or however powerful it might be, could enter into obligations binding the general taxpayer to expenditure—whether it be of small sums or large, the principle was the same—without the consent of the Parliament, of the elected representatives of the people, they would be going upon very dangerous ground indeed, and they would be forming precedents for the future management of the Union’s affairs, of the national affairs, which would lead them into the most dire misfortune. He was old enough to remember the time when a Governor in this country, with the best possible intentions, spent a sum of money—he thought about £60,000—on railway relief works without the consent of Parliament, and at a time when a Governor had far more authority than he had now—before Responsible Government. When Parliament met, it did a most unusual thing, and passed a vote of censure. A Select Committee, of which the Colonial Secretary was the chairman, sat, and he (the Colonial Secretary) was obliged to sign a report of the Select Committee strongly condemnatory of the Governor’s action. And more than that, Parliament refused to relieve the Governor of the liability. Of course, the money was spent, but the Governor was not relieved of the liability of his action for some years. It would be in the recollection of younger members that once a Minister entered into a contract without the authority of Parliament, and it led to the disruption of the Ministry, while the contract was not ratified. He did not say that that would take place here, but what he did say was that a most unusual, a most unprecedented, a most dangerous step had been taken, and that the country would look to them, its representatives, to sift the matter to the bottom. He was told that the contracts in this case were completed in a hurry, and on specifications of an imperfect kind, and that, so far from the money being sufficient to cover the cost, he believed that more would be needed. He raised the question now because he believed they would not be doing their duty if they did not, so soon after Parliament reassembled as possible, appoint a Select Committee to consider this matter and bring up a report to the House on the whole of the circumstances attending, the signing of these contracts. A million and a quarter was not a small sum to spend on the housing of a thousand Civil Servants. On the contrary, he would be surprised were that House to devote such a gigantic sum for such a purpose at a time when the country was crying out for development and works of public utility. He would only say one word more on the matter. He wondered what his hon. friends on either side of the House would have said if, on May 30, he, as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, had signed a contract with Messrs Pauling and Co., or some other contract, without the sanction of Parliament, for the purpose of the construction of a railway to Bredasdorp, a more useful work, he ventured to say, than that which they were at present discussing. He wondered what would have been said if he had taken such action. He hoped that the matter would not be allowed to rest, because they would be creating a most dangerous precedent.

said he could well understand why no other hon. members wished to speak—

I do.

Well, it is rather unfortunate. I should have preferred to have heard all the criticisms. Continuing, he said he had no objection, not did any of the other members of the Government, to the debate on this question or on any other question, but he did protest that upon the second reading of the Appropriation Bill this question should have been raised again. He had told the House, more than once, that he intended to bring in a Loan Bill, and that he intended in that Bill to provide for the cost of the construction of these buildings. Surely hon. members ought to know that that would be the more appropriate time to discuss this question, but he had no objection to the debate at any time; he even welcomed it. What did it mean? It meant that hon. members were making speeches on an Appropriation Bill, and reverting to a question which was not germane to the subject. There was no provision in these Estimates for the construction of the Union Buildings. He was asking the House to pass an Act sanctioning the expenditure provided for in these Estimates. His right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) said that he must have been guilty, when making his Budget speech, of a lapse of memory, because he did not inform the House as to these buildings. It was not a lapse of memory; he repudiated any such insinuation. If one listened to some of the speeches which had been made, one would come to the conclusion that the late Transvaal Government had been guilty of some scandal or some secrecy that they were ashamed of. He wished to repudiate that. The position on May 31 was that they knew that, under the South Africa Act, Pretoria was to be the administrative capital and Cape Town the legislative capital, and that Pretoria was also a Provincial capital. They knew Pretoria was not equipped, and something had to be done. No Union Parliament was sitting, and there was no Union Government. If nothing had been done, his hon. friend would have been the first to come along and call the Government stupid. Somebody had to do something; the Transvaal Government recognised that it would have to take the responsibility. It was all very fine for hon. gentlemen to come there and say they had acted illegally, unconstitutionally, and without the sanction of Parliament. Hon. members must surely recognise the extraordinary circumstances of the country at the time. He would only refer to what had been done in connection with the building which they now occupied. (Government cheers.)

There was a vote of Parliament.

For what?

For the building.

For about half the money. Continuing, he said that when this matter was dealt with by the Cape House they well knew that the amount of money voted would have to be exceeded. He contended that these speeches, which were published broadcast, were being made for the purpose of creating a prejudice in the minds of the people of the country. These speeches were designed to try to make people believe that the Transvaal Government had been guilty of something that was illegal, or something that was secret. Well, he didn’t want to shirk the responsibility. But when hon. members came forward and pretended that this was some new discovery, and that it was done without the knowledge of anybody, and that somebody had entered into a contract without authority, then he said that it was a wilful perversion of the facts. His right hon. friend had said he had been informed that this contract was entered into in a hurry and without tenders being called; and he (Mr. Hull) considered speeches of that sort were being made for the purpose of creating a prejudice. No one knew better than his right hon. friend that public tenders were invited. (Government cheers.) Continuing, he pointed out that it was not a matter of a week or a month, but of twelve months, and that tenders were invited throughout South Africa. Now they were told that it was a hole and corner business.

said that he associated himself with everything that had been said by the right hon. member for Victoria West, and he wished to reply to one or two of the remarks that had been made by the Treasurer. He had used no arguments; he had simply proceeded to draw a red herring across the track. With regard to the present House, the Cape Parliament voted £40,000 for the buildings during the last session. They had estimates before them, and the present Minister of Railways told them of what was to be done, and they voted £40,000, which they thought would be enough to cover the cost. He did not know whether the amount had been exceeded or not. The Treasurer had told them that Pretoria had not been equipped for the housing of public servants, and that something had to be done. Did they only discover that after the Transvaal Parliament bad met?

Long before.

Why didn’t you bring a Bill before the Transvaal Parliament? That was done in the case of the present House. Your duty was to have brought in a Loan Bill. That was what the Government is accused of. Continuing, he said that they raised that discussion on set purpose. He stood there because he wanted the public to know the unconstitutional and the illegal action which the late Transvaal Government had committed. What remedy had they but to bring up the matter as he had? Their only remedy was to appeal to the public, and he was perfectly certain that every right-minded man in the country condemned the action of the Government. He agreed with what the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said —that he did not think any greater shock had been given than the revelation which had been made the other day. He thought that this had done more to weaken confidence in the Ministry of the country than anything eke. They had found for the first time publicly that contracts amounting to £1,100,000 had been entered into without authority from any Parliament —either that Parliament or the Transvaal Parliament. He thought the shock had been greater because there had been that concealment, notwithstanding what his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) had said. And that was Where he blamed the Minister of Railways (Mr. Sauer) and the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Burton), because they must have known of it. What had taken place? The Treasurer had made a Budget speech, in which he purported to state the financial position of the country. Was that item of £1,100,000 ever mentioned at all?—not an inconsiderable item. His hon. friends (Mr. Burton and Mr. Sauer) had been parties to that concealment. Again, a supplementary speech had been made by the Minister of Finance, in which he was supposed to have cleared up things which were not clear in his Budget speech. Had he ever mentioned that fact? Never, in any shape or form. That was what they were complaining of in regard to that matter—that there had been concealment until it had been forced out. What was the position to-day? It was that the Transvaal uncovered commitments—that was, commitments for which money had not been provided, were, as a matter of fact, much larger than the boasted balance the Transvaal had brought into Union. (Mr. MERRIMAN: Hear, hear.) The balance brought into the Union by the Transvaal was £1,020,000. The commitments amounted to £940,000 on public works, and £1,100,000 on the Union buildings, or a total of uncovered commitments of £2,040,000. The Union Parliament was called upon to provide for this deficit of close upon a million sterling. He was not including any Loan Bill or anything covered by loans. He agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), that it was not a matter of the money; but that it was a much more serious matter, because it was a great breach of the understanding arrived at in the Convention—his hon. friend would correct him if he were wrong—which was that there should be no more loans, if the Transvaal had a right to raise a million sterling. A certain amount of loan was allowed to be raised by the Orange Free State and Transvaal Governments. The Transvaal Government saw fit to raise a million loan, and though they did not actually raise the money, they had made commitments, and that was a breach of the spirit of the Convention. Why had it done so? Simply because, in his opinion, the Transvaal Government had not the confidence to leave that matter over to the Union Parliament to sanction it; because he did not think that the Union Parliament would sanction such an enormous sum of money. That was the reason, he thought, why that thing had been rushed through in that unconstitutional manner, which involved the country in interest to the tune of £40,000 per annum. He thought it was freely admitted that the constitutional practice of the Union Parliament depended on the British constitutional system; and if there was one principle more than any other in that, it was that no money could be spent without the authority of Parliament, which had been the practice in the British Parliament for the last 200 or 300 years. The Transvaal Government had simply broken that principle, for which the English people had struggled for centuries to establish, and which was the very foundation of the British Parliament. Without that principle, they simply reduced Parliament to a debating society. In the Cape they had been very careful to establish that; and in the Cape they would not have been able to carry on those buildings at all, as they would not have the money, as the Auditor-General would not have countersigned. It was illegal for the bank to issue the money unless it had the counter-signature of the Auditor-General. In the Cape the consequence would have been that you simply would not get all the money, not could you in Great Britain. The hon. member read an extract from Todd’s “Parliamentary Practice,” and sections 117 and 120 of the Constitution Act. In regard to unforeseen circumstances, which might have arisen when Parliament was not sitting, the Government could, he said, draw on a contingency fund, hut that was strictly limited. He was perfectly well aware that a certain amount of latitude was allowed, but it had never been intended that money should be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of carrying out those works. That principle of not spending money without Parliamentary authority had been violated by the Minister of Finance and the gentlemen associated with him; and deliberately by him, when there was not the slightest necessity to do so. He would like to know what the position of the Minister of Railways was in regard to that matter. He (Mr. Jagger) had always been a disciple of him (Mr. Sauer) and the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) in all Parliamentary matters, and he was perfectly sure that if his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) had sat on the Opposition, the country would have rung with denunciations of that matter. If they took the Logan matter, his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) had denounced it—and rightly so—and left his colleagues on the Ministry and joined the Opposition. “Our view,” said Mr. Jagger, in conclusion. “is that we want the country to know of this matter; we want the taxpayers to know about it; and they can only know about it by the public discussion that takes place in this House. I got up this afternoon with the object of making the matter known throughout the length and breadth of the land, and I am convinced the country will utterly condemn the action of the Government in regard to this matter.” (Opposition cheers.)

who rose amid Opposition cheers, said that he did not rise with the intention of continuing this somewhat acrimonious debate. (Hear, hear.) He was sure they were all in thorough accord, even the Minister of Finance with the principles enunciated by the right hon. member for Victoria West and his hon. friend, the member for Cape Town Central. Then the Finance Minister’s first objection was that that was not the occasion to discuss the subject. There was not the least doubt. However, that the right hon. gentleman had every right to bring forward the question on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, intended, as he said, to make the country ring and the people understand the action of the Government. Well, he had this satisfaction, that the whole country would know about it. It seemed to him (Dr. Jameson) that the Minister of Finance, first as representing the Transvaal Government, and then the Union Government, had certainly been guilty of what one may almost call a breach of the Constitution, certainly a breach of Parliamentary procedure, in entering into these contracts without any authority from any legislative body at all. He thought most of them understood how that came about. Partly, it was an honest anxiety on the part of the Minister of Finance, who, it was to be remembered, was the Minister for the Transvaal, that this money should not be ultimately saddled on the Transvaal Government, but that it was, as they all knew it was, an obligation of the Union to provide buildings far Union servants in the administrative capital of the Union. He thought the Minister would have been well advised, so as to have brought himself within the lines of the law, to do as the right hon. member for Victoria West did, that was, to bring in a Loan Bill to the amount which he thought might be expended, and if that was exceeded, trust to the Union to condone it. Therefore, he made a mistake, which they must remember was rather natural, considering the anxiety that the new administrative capital should provide on an adequate scale for the housing of the future Civil Servants of the Union. That seemed to him (Dr. Jameson) the object in view. However, these contracts were entered into, and he must say they in that House would have been the first to blame the Transvaal Government if they had not made the necessary accommodation, if they had waited until the Union Parliament had sat before they took that housing in hand. They in the Cape, of course, believed they could house all the servants of the Union—(a laugh)— but the Convention decided otherwise, and said that the administrative capital should be in the Transvaal, and the Transvaal proceeded to deal with this question of accommodation. They had done it, they on that side thought, on a very extravagant scale; but the main trouble was what the Minister of Finance had suffered a great deal of criticism for in that House during the last month—and he thought deservedly —and that was not making a clean breast of the financial position. Many hours had been wasted in trying to find out what the financial position was, where the loan balances were allocated, etc. A great deal of that time might have been saved if the Minister had not been so clever, and had given them a full statement, not only in regard to this transaction, but in regard to the whole question in his Budget speech. They all knew that if he had brought in such a Loan Bill as was suggested he would have been backed up by the Transvaal Parliament. It had not been a deliberate dodge, as they, might call it, in financial matters. He thought it had been extremely bad judgment, and he thought the best reparation the Minister could make to that House would be at the earliest possible opportunity, on assembling after the recess, to place on the table these contracts and grant the request of the right hon. gentleman for a committee to inquire into these contracts and bring up a report. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped that view would be taken by the Government.

said that he was becoming tired of these insinuations, which imputed dishonest motives to the Government. First, there was an alleged concealment of balances. Now the Government was being charged with concealment in regard to the Union buildings at Pretoria. Continuing, he said that behind that discussion he saw that the question of the two capitals was being raised, and he could not see why that question should always be discussed in the House—and in that, their first, session as a Union Parliament, after the honourable understanding which had been come to on that matter in the Convention. They had agreed to Pretoria being the administrative, and Cape Town being the legislative capital; and he had told the people of Fretoria that it was an honourable understanding on their part that the two capitals should remain. Here, in that House, feeling was being raised against the Transvaal and Pretoria, and for what reason? If the present position were disturbed it would lead to something like a revolution. If the Government did not have the confidence of the right hon. member for Victoria West, why did he not move a vote of no confidence in the Government? (Cheers.) He strongly deprecated speeches being made in the House which had the effect of raising bad feelings in the country—surely the present was not a time when that should be done. Above all, it was not honest. Attacks were made on the Government, but he had deliberately refrained from replying, because he did not like these bad feelings to be raised, which, if they were, would do a lot of harm. He felt sure this would subsequently be regretted by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). It was on the understanding that there should be the two capitals that they had entered Union; and as soon as they had entered Union they set about to give practical effect there to. Nothing had pleased him more, or the Transvaal, that before Union was brought about effect should be given to Cape Town being the legislative capital by that addition to the Houses of Parliament, and he had wished it to be as big as the money would allow. (Cheers.) It was true that, as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had said, a resolution had been agreed to in the Cape House before Union, but that was not for a new building, but for alterations to the existing Houses of Parliament. (Opposition dissent.)

No; not at all.

If that be the case, why, then, was the Transvaal asked if we give our approval to these additions being made? Continuing, he said that it was very clear to him why all these discussions were started—it was nothing but the question of the two capitals behind it all—and for the consequences he would hold the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) partly responsible. The question of the two capitals was being raised by it being asked how much was spent on the one, and how much the other had to pay, and by statements that the one got too little and the other had to pay too much, and the like. If they went in for that recrimination under Union, he would say that it would seem that the best solution would be for each Province to keep separate accounts, so that each could spend its own revenue. Now, it was being said that the Transvaal got too much, but those who made that charge did not take account of the fact that the Transvaal was the largest, contributor to the pool. What the Transvaal bad done with regard to the construction of the Union buildings at Pretoria had been done with the full knowledge of the Transvaal Parliament, which had voted £370,000 towards the buildings, as it was felt that there must be suitable accommodation for the administration of the Union. When the charge was made against, the Transvaal that it received more than its fair share, he would reply that it must be borne in mind that it was prepared to pay its just, and more than its just, share of taxation (Cheers.) He very much regretted that that agitation was being raised—that these “hares” were started, and these fires lit. If they wished to start a proper conflagration, they should press for the Select Committee that had been mooted They had an honourable understanding, and on that they had come into Union. Mistakes had been made, perhaps, but what had been done had been done with the best intentions for the future welfare of South Africa, and so as to be able to initiate Union at the earliest possible date. Hundreds of letters and telegrams had been addressed to him on the agitation by people in the interior. The agitators evidently forgot that the Transvaal, as a colony, had contributed a considerable sum towards the cost of construction. Perhaps the Transvaal Government had acted wrongly in entering into that contract: but did anyone believe that it had been done wilfully, or only to help the Union? What, had been done in regard to the Union buildings had not been done secretly. Concluding, he said that with regard to matters affecting the Union he took them in a broad spirit, which some people did not seem to do. Some people wanted to know which was “the” capital of South Africa, but he had told them that he could not give an answer to that. All these difficulties which were now being raised, and which had to he contended against, originated, if would seem, from that question of the capital. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) was so desirous that Cape money should not be spent on the Transvaal, why not let them all keep separate accounts? If that were done he could assure them that not a penny would find its way from the Cape to the Transvaal.

said that his friend the member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had rather pointedly referred to him, and had claimed that in the matter of Parliamentary practices and usages he was a disciple of his. Well, he could not have a better master. (Laughter.) But he (Mr. Sauer) was not going to discuss the question as to whether his hon. friend’s (Mr. Hull’s) conduct was unconstitutional and illegal, because he did not think that that question was really before the House. His hon. friend for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), had read from a book on Parliamentary practice, but he thought he could have read from a much more elementary hook to show that expenditure without the authority of Parliament was unconstitutional, and his friend (Mr. Jagger) was too late in making that discovery. They all knew that the foundation of liberty in England was that Parliament controlled the purse-strings, and that Parliament must vote all moneys except in special cases and to provide for contingencies. So the quotation by his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) from a standard book seemed to him quite unnecessary. Certainly unnecessary so far as he (the speaker) was concerned. What he wanted to know was: why was this question introduced? (Ministerial cheers.) He wanted to know whether this Government was responsible for It. They were no more responsible for it than the gentlemen who sat opposite. He could understand if they merely wanted to draw attention to the proper usages of Parliament, and the necessity of obtaining a vote before spending money, that reference should be made to it, but how could they make a peg of it upon which to hang an attack upon the Government? They had no more to do with it than the late Government in the Cape Colony. No more, and that was nothing. (Ministerial cheers.) His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) went on to show that there was apparently an attempt at concealment. How could there have been, when it was only yesterday or the previous day that the Treasurer said that he would have to come down to this House for a Bill to borrow? He would say again that as a Government they were no more responsible than the late Cape Government or the Transvaal. What had they as a Government to do with it? It was antecedent to their time. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had said that he (the speaker) and the Minister of Native Affairs were equally responsible, and the process of reasoning by which he arrived at that conclusion was really extraordinary. He said that they must have known it. Well, supposing they did, how did that alter the fact? Could they tear up the contracts? Or could they undo what had been done? What more could they have done?

You were parties to concealment.

asked how there could have been an attempt at concealment when a Bill was being introduced to borrow money, and didn’t all the world know it? He had always thought that his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) came from Yorkshire, but he was beginning to think that he came from Tipperary. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that constitutionally the Government had no more to do with the matter than the Government of Great Britain, and he hoped that there would not be the evil influences which some people expected would flow from this, and he felt that the less they had to say about the claims or interests or requirements of the two capitals at the present the better. He had a telegram the other day from Johannesburg complaining that the census was being taken here, and in the same way he complained about questions being nut to him here about people being removed up to Pretoria, which was the administrative capital, and the proper place where the administrative officials should carry out their duties. They had established the fact that there should be two capitals, and they must not attempt one way or another to disturb that arrangement He would not say that there would be a riot, but the consequences might be very uncomfortable, indeed, serious, to the early accomplishment of Union in the true sense of the word. He appealed to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), to try to get more of the Convention spirit. He had been so anxious to make technical points against his opponents that he had forgotten the larger issues. In conclusion, he said he was sure that this Government did what they believed to be in the best interests of the Union, and he hoped that now that the matter had been raised and discussed, they would proceed to business.

said it was only right that he should say a few words on behalf of the members of the late Transvaal Parliament. Well, he wished to inform his hon. friend who sat next to him (Mr. Jagger) that, as far as the Transvaal was concerned, there had been absolutely no breach of the Convention. Those who were in Opposition in the late Transvaal Parliament knew fully of the purchase of ground for the Union buildings, and they also knew that it was absolutely necessary to make provision in Pretoria for the accommodation for the carrying on of the administration of the Union. Subsequent to the dissolution of Parliament, the late Transvaal Government let the contracts for the completion of the work. As to the question of providing accommodation, there was absolutely no doubt, but he thought that it would have been far better if the Treasurer had brought in a Loan Bill for the purposes of the Union buildings. He wished to add that the Transvaal Government had nothing to hide, and that if the Treasurer had made a complete statement to the House in the first few days of the session, or when he introduced his Budget statement, the whole of this acrimonious discussion would have been unnecessary. This was the position. When the Union Parliament came into office on May 31 they were spending money for which there was no Parliamentary authority

There was the Act of Union.

said that at the very earliest stage the Union Government should have asked authority of the House to carry on the work. At the same time he did not think there had been anything of an underhand nature. However, if the Union Government had made a clear statement on the subject, the whole of that debate would have been saved. (Opposition cheers.)

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

said he wished to point out that there was a difference between that Bill and the one that, had just been passed. They did not expect to have a perfectly constitutional arrangement under an obviously irregular system, but he hoped the matter would be looked into in the near future. If the system under the Bill were workable it was only so because the heads were so large that there was ample elbow room. He did not think the arrangement was a satisfactory one, especially to those who believed in strict Parliamentary control.

asked if the Minister of Railways could give any information as to the Railway Commission which he had promised to appoint?

said, he could make no definite statement on the matter to-day, but he hoped when the House re-assembled he would be in a position to do so. With regard to what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had said, most of the money had been spent already, but in the next Estimates he would make provision for a little more elbow room.

said he had had a telegram stating that a contractor was prepared to do the work of lowering the Jeppestown line referred to in the House the other day, for £106,000. He hoped that, in view of this, the Government would reconsider the position.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

said that he understood the Commission referred to by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) was a Commission upon which the men would be represented. He (Dr. Smartt) thought that the idea in appointing the Commission was that before the men should go to that Commission with any grievances they should have exhausted all other resources. He would like to know whether the Railway Board had considered any grievances put before them by the men, and whether, also, the Railway Board were taking steps with regard to re moving the inequalities in salaries and so on of the railwaymen in the different Provinces.

asked if the Minister had any further communication to make on the subject of the lowering of the Jeppestown line, in view of the telegram just read.

said he had placed the Truter report before the Railway Commission, and redress would be given in respect of a considerable portion of the recommendations made by Mr. Truter though not of all. He (Mr. Sauer) had spent a great deal of time in investigating complaints from time to time, and he had always endeavoured to give particular attention to the complaints of the men lower in the scale. He found that the men with salaries could usually take good care of themselves. There was a certain amount of discontent and dissatisfaction, not wholly, he thought, without cause. The idea was to have an independent Board which would occupy the relation to the railway staff which the Commission contemplated by the South Africa Act would have in regard to the Civil Service generally. The railway staff was a very big one, and he had pledged himself to a Commission. It was a matter which he wished to consider very carefully, and to discuss with the Board. That he would do before the next meeting of Parliament. The only questions were as to the form of the Commission and its scope. The men would be represented on the Commission. As to the lowering of the Jeppestown line, the Chief Engineer estimated the cost at £182,000. If they could arrive at an agreement with the Municipality, and the work was to be done on the pound for pound principle, then, if the hon. member came forward with a contractor prepared to do the work for £106,000, backed by a satisfactory guarantee, the Government very likely would give him the job.

asked; if the Government had con sidered the question of providing a syren at Slangkop.

said he was rather shy of syrens. One never knew where one might be led. (Laughter.) He had heard experts on the subject; some had said they were good, some that they were useless, and some that they were worse than useless.

honed that grievances would come before the Railway Board at once, and so save time and trouble.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved the second reading of the High Commissioner’s Bill, and said that it was drawn up on the lines laid down in Australian, Canadian, and other measures of a similar nature, and made the High Commissioner a statutory officer. He pointed out that clause 5 safeguarded the interests of officers at present on the staff.

What power have we to appoint a High Commissioner before an Act is passed?

observed that at present Sir Richard Solomon was only the acting High Commissioner until his position was ratified.

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

moved the second reading of the Rhodes’s Will Bill. He said he thought hon. members on both sides of the House would agree with him that it marked an event of unusual interest and significance, not only in the Cape Peninsula, but throughout South Africa. (General cheers.) It marked in a peculiar and special way the realisation of the dream of one who, whatever his shortcomings might have been, and how much they might have differed from his political views, had been not only a great Englishman, but also a great South African. (Cheers.) He was not only a devoted and great Imperialist, but his heart and his whole affections were in his adopted country. He sympathised with the people, he co-operated with great sympathy with those people during his lifetime, and he (Mr. Burton) believed if he had lived to see the consummation of what he hoped and dreamed for, he probably would have been found co-operating with those people to-day. (Hear, hear.) He did not think anyone would have appreciated more than Mr. Rhodes that the first occupant of this beautiful estate should be one of the leaders of the Dutch people in this country. In regard to the Bill, in clause 13 of the will was the bequest of the estate. The will was dated June 1, 1899, and within less than ten years Mr. Rhodes’s dream of Union was fulfilled. The object of the Bill was to give effect to that extremely interesting human document which was incorporated in the preamble. Hon. members would notice that, seeing that the form of government which had taken place was not what was called a Federal Government, but a Unified Government, a technical point might have arisen as to whether the head of that Government should occupy Groote Schuur. He wanted to express, on behalf of the Government, their appreciation of the courteous and sympathetic attitude of the trustees under Mr. Rhodes’s will. On this point they at once said, on the 31st May, that as soon as ever the Union took place, they were not going to raise a trumpery technical point like this, and that they agreed that the Union Government, as it was, was substantially the Government contemplated by Mr. Rhodes in his will. The trustees under the will had to pay £1,000 a year for the upkeep of the house and grounds, but, instead of doing that, they had decided to pay over a lump sum of £25,000. An important proposal in the Bill was the provision that the Government may, subject to the rights of tenancy, servitudes, etc., delegate a site on the Groote Schuur Estate for the purpose of University Buildings. The public were secured access to the estate, except to the grounds immediately surrounding the Prime Minister’s house. In moving the second reading of the Bill, he would say that the estate was a great gift, a beautiful gift, and it was eminently a most appropriate gift. He was certain that the House would agree with him that South Africa in this respect, as in many others, undoubtedly owed one more debt of gratitude to the Genlus of Cecil Rhodes. (Cheers.)

said that they felt this Bill was the top stone in the erection of that grand edifice of South African Union which Cecil Rhodes lived and worked for. He was especially glad to note that in the Bill the old spelling “Groote Schuur,” had been abided by. Mr. Rhodes himself called the place “Groote Schuur,” and not “Groot Sohuur.”

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

said that certain grounds were reserved under this schedule. It was pointed out that this should not include the Glen. The Glen was very much appreciated by the public, and he wanted it made clear whether the schedule did include the Glen or not.

said he would like to know what his hon. friend wanted the Prime Minister to have at Groote Schuur. On one occasion he called on his hon. friend opposite (Dr. Jameson) on Sunday afternoon at Groote Schuur, and found a party of ladies just in front of the door. He at first thought that this was a luncheon party, but he found that his hon. friend had fled from his house, and that the visitors were casual people wandering about at his very door. On another occasion he was a guest at breakfast at Groote Schuur, at the time of the Convention, and going out after breakfast on to the stoop, found a party of shady-looking people with hand cameras, who were passengers from a German steamboat. On the occasion of his call in the afternoon he went out the back-way, and found some coloured gentlemen having a picnic just behind the house. They must put a stop to that sort of thing. He would like to know what, roughly, was the cost of maintaining the estate.

stated that, roughly, the cost of maintaining the estate was between £4,000 and £5,000 a year. Proceeding, be said that every consideration had been paid to the public. (Cheers.) The Glen could be enjoyed by the public as much as ever it could, but, at the same time, it could not be damaged as much as it could. At the same time there was a small amount of privacy left for the Prime Minister—

Precious little!

said that at the same time no enjoyment had been taken away from the public.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

said that although he was reluctant to intervene, he wished to say that it was right that there should be remembered what was in Rhodes’s mind, and what was expressed in his will namely, that the fount of Rhodes’s inspiration was Oxford University and Oriel College. There Rhodes found great ideas. Throughout his life all those who came in contact with him felt that he was haunted by some inspiration, which was, to a large extent, a secret, except to those who knew its origin—he was led on by the living ideas of Oxford. Rhodes was not only a great South African, but he was largely inspired by the fact that he was a great Oxford and a great Oriel man.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved the adoption of the report of the Select Committee.

Agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Patents’ Amendment (Natal and Orange Free State) Bill, explained that its object was to enable the Minister to appoint someone to act on his behalf at Bloemfontein and Maritzburg. It was simply a transitory measure, and next session he hoped there would be laid before Parliament a Bill dealing with patents as a whole.

said there were many objections to the present state of affairs as fair as patents were concerned, and he hoped the promised Bill would be published early, so as to give those interested an opportunity of discussing it.

The motion was agreed to, and

The Bill was read a second time.

moved the second reading of the Bill. He said that there was now no provision for the pensions of judges of the Court of Appeal instituted since Union. This measure made such provision, and provision was also made for the pensions of ordinary judges appointed since the Union and of those who would be appointed in future. These pensions were on the same scale as those hitherto given, excepting that there was an alteration made as to the pensions of judges who were retired before they were 65 years of age.

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