from inhabitants of Wakkerstroom, praying that the office of District Commandant of Police be abolished.

from John Oliver, carpenter, Salt River Railway Works.

from voters of Smithfield, praying that scab may not be included in the Diseases of Stock Bill.

from the Fauresmith Municipality, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from, residents of Hoopstad, praying for railway communication (two petitions).

from J. H. Taylor, carpenter, Salt River Railway Works.

from residents of the Witwatersrand, for the repeal of the laws relating to trade on mining grounds.

from F. T. Johnson, locomotive engine driver, S.A. Railways.

from residents of Hoopstad, for a railway from Bloemfontein over Haaganstad Salt-Pans to Bultfontein, and Vierfontein Coal Mine (two petitions).

from R. Feneysey, police constable.

from Pilgrims Rest Mining and Commercial Association, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from R. A. E. Shepstone, widow of T. T. Shepstone, Civil Servant.

from J. H. Nicholas, locomotive engine driver, S. A. Railways.

from M. Borcherds, of Woodstock, messenger, Resident Magistrate’s Court, Riversdale.

from residents of Impendhle Division, Natal, for construction of Elandskop-Loteni railway.

said that before the orders of the day were proceeded with, he would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he expected to be able to lay the Railway Estimates on the table?

During the present week, I hope.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a notice posted at the Ferreira Deep Mine, notifying employees that the sum of two shillings a month will be deducted from their wages for maintenance of the change house; (2) whether, under the mining regulations, mining companies are not obliged by law to maintain change houses for the use of employees; and (3) whether he will take steps to prevent such deductions being made from the wages of employees?

replied that from inquiries it appeared that the notice had been put up under a misapprehension, and against the general orders from the head office, and that it had now been withdrawal.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) Whether he is aware of the fact that native ex Chief Israel and native ex-sub-Chiefs Malabelele and Maroch, who were some years ago deported to the district of Marico, afterwards to the district of Barberton, subsequently to Frederikstad, in the district of Potchefstroom, and finally to Pella, in the district of Rustenburg, were, immediately on their arrival at the last-mentioned place, ordered by the Native Stub-Commissioner to forthwith pay the taxes for the years 1908, 1919, and 1910, amounting to £12 per head; (2) whether it is a fact that they were shortly afterwards arrested and taken before the Native Sub-Commissioner at Saulspoort, who imposed a fine of £5 per head, or six months’ imprisonment, and in addition ordered the taxes owing to be paid before December 25, to escape additional punishment; and (5) whether, in view of the fact that the said ex-chief and ex sub-chiefs were during those years detained as exiles, he will cause an inquiry to be instituted to ascertain whether right and justice have been done in this case?

said that the ex-chief and the two ex-sub-chiefs were removed in 1907 to Barberton, and subsequently to Frederikstad. In 1909 the order was changed, and they were permitted to live anywhere in the Province with the exception of Marico. They chose to reside at Pella, and while there they were called upon to pay the taxation in question. Inquiries showed that they were natives of substance, owning from 1,000 to 1,200 head of cattle each, and after three warnings they were prosecuted for failure to pay the taxes, and fined £5 each. They paid the fines, and were then given a further month in which to pay the taxes, with the result that in January last they paid the amounts due for 1908 and 1909. It did not seem that there was any reason to warrant a remission of taxation in the cases of these natives, although, of course, if they had been without means the Department would not have pressed for payment.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the Government will take into its favourable consideration the advisability of carrying children to and from school on the South African Railways free of cost to the parents?

said the Railway Department carried the children of railway employees free to and from school. The usual practice was to carry the children of indigent parents, but it was not the intention of the Department to carry the children of parents free who could afford to pay, although a liberal concession would be made.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether he is aware that it is the practice of certain firms in Johannesburg to import shop assistants under contract at a low rate of wage, thereby throwing out of employment those who are at present in such employ; and (2) whether he would direct the Inspector of White Labour to inquire into this matter, and report to him at an early date?

said it was not the usual practice to import shop assistants under contract, only in special cases where special training was required. He was obtaining a further report from the Inspector of White Labour on the matter.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Why the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the finance accounts of the late Orange River Colony was not laid on the table in Dutch simultaneously with the English; and (2) whether the Government is prepared in view of the considerable delay which takes place in the publication of the Dutch versions of important documents, to take such steps as will give proper effect to the provisions of section 137 of the South Africa Act, 1909?

In reply to the first part of the question, I would explain that the Dutch edition of the Free State Audit Report is still in the printer’s hands, but will be laid on the table at an early date. In the abnormal circumstances now prevailing, the Controller and Auditor-General found it impossible to arrange for the simultaneous completion of the Dutch and English editions, and as the English edition of this report was ready first, I deemed it to be in accordance with the wishes of honourable members that it should be laid on the table at once, rather than that it should be withheld from the House until the Dutch edition was completed. I may add that it was my intention to follow the same course with regard to the audit reports upon the accounts of the other three Provinces, but, naturally, if the feeling of the House is that these reports should be held back until both editions are completed, I will readily fall in with this view. I should like to anticipate a similar question in regard to the Estimates of Expenditure laid on the table yesterday. The Dutch edition of the Estimates is being printed with all despatch, and will be laid on the table without any avoidable delay. (2) The Government are most anxious that nothing should be done, or omitted, which could be construed as an infringement of the provisions of section 137 of the South Africa Act, and no effort will be spared to diminish the delays to which the hon. member alludes.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether he will give instructions that all Acts passed by Parliament shall, when proclaimed, appear in the “Provincial Gazettes” as well as in the “Union Gazette”?

said the “Union Gazette” circulated very widely through all the Provinces, and the additional expense of publishing laws both in Dutch and English in each of the four “Provincial Gazettes” in addition to the “Union Gazette” made the proposal unacceptable.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he has been informed of the recent fire in the Tokai Plantation, and if so, (2) whether he could give the House any information as to the cause of the said fire and the steps he intends to take to prevent fires there in the future; and (3) what steps are being taken to protect other Government forests and plantations against fire?

said the extent of the damage covered about 50 acres, mostly of young pines, and the actual value £300 to £400, besides labour. No fire belt was crossed, and the authorities were able to keep the fire within limits. What steps were usually taken to prevent fire spreading were published in the Forestry Report.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the Government intends to introduce during the present session a Bill regulating weights and measures throughout the Union?

replied that in view of the very heavy programme of necessary legislation already before Parliament and still to be brought forward, he doubted whether there was any possibility of passing a Weights and Measures Bill this year; but the matter is left open for the present.

asked the Minister of the Interior when it is his intention to lay on the table the regulations framed under the Census Act?

replied that the regulations will be laid on the table as soon as they have been completed, and it is hoped to do so before Parlia-is prorogued.

asked the Minister of Mines whether a gentleman not previously engaged in the ‘

Mines Department has been appointed as Inspector of Mines for the district of Boksburg, and, if so, whether it was not possible to promote one of the existing officials of the Mines Department to that position?

The inspectorship referred to by the hon. member is being filled by the acting appointment of one of the deputy inspectors, who has been for some years on the staff of the Mines Department. A gentleman not previously engaged in the Mines Department is to be appointed in his place as an acting deputy inspector of mines, because it is deemed necessary for the efficient working of the Mines Department that some engineer with practical experience in the mines be appointed to inspectorate.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether the contract for the University College buildings in Pretoria stipulated for the completion of the work by February, 1911; (2) whether there is any prospect of this being done; and, if not, (3) what is the reason for the delay, and what steps, if any, does the Government propose to take to hasten the completion of the work?

said there were two contracts, one for the Science block and one for the Main block. The Science block was practically complete, and the Main block would be completed in three or four months’ time. The reason for the delay was the weather conditions and the difficulty of obtaining suitable building material.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether in view of the very great shortage of the late European vintage crops, the Government propose in any way to seize the opportunity of re-establishing Cape wines on the English and European markets; and (2) whether at the coming Imperial Conference the Union representatives will urge upon the Home Government the desirability of so readjusting imposts upon wines and, spirits entering the United Kingdom as in some measure to restore the valuable preference at one time enjoyed by such Colonial produce over foreign?

said the Government were aware that there was a great shortage of wine in Europe, but he did not think there was any better opportunity on that account of disposing of South African wines there. The Government had no intention of asking for a read justement of duties with regard to South African wines and spirits.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) What was the number of natives recruited from territories north of latitude 22 deg., who were working upon the mines in December last; and (2) what was the mortality rate per thousand per annum among those natives during that month and during the same month in the last four years?

said the following was the mortality per 1,000: In 1906, 50.8; in 1907, 63.5; in 1908, 59.37; in 1909, 64.3; in 1910, 82. The average number of natives employed amounted to 22,964, and the number of deaths, 157 for December last.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he will introduce a law allowing of the execution of post-nuptial contracts, as now in vogue in the Province of Natal?

said the matter was under consideration.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware that some of the Salt River railway employees engaged during the year 1910 received no payment for the statutory holidays, and, if so, whether he will have the injustice remedied?

said these particular employees were in the nature of temporary employees, and were not entitled to payment for holidays. There was, therefore, no injustice, and nothing that needed remedying.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the establishment of Divisional Councils, or other forms of local government, in the rural areas of the Provinces of Natal, Transvaal, and Orange Free State?

replied that the Government had no such intention at present.

asked: he Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware that, since his statement in this House to the effect that the Railway Department would employ no more indentured Indians, the South African Railways Department have had a large number of newly-imported indentured Indians assigned to them in Natal, and that the department are making strenuous efforts there to get as many Indians on re-indenture as possible?

said no further requisitions had been applied for, and none would be. These particular Indians were contracted for before Union. He wished to reduce the number of Indian railway employees, and no fresh ones would be taken on.

asked the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of the Government to provide this session a sum of money for the local loans account, whereby small municipalities and other minor local bodies could obtain leans?

The Government is alive to the desirability of providing a means whereby the smaller local authorities may be enabled to obtain loans, on reasonable terms, for reproductive capital services, and the question is being investigated at the present time with a view to the crystallisation of the systems in force in the four Provinces into one comprehensive scheme for the Union. I am unable to say at the moment whether it will be possible to submit proposals on the subject to Parliament before the close of the present session.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the purpose of defining: (1) The duties and powers of the Railway Board; (2) the duties and disabilities of the members of the Board and fixing their salaries; and (3) regulating generally all matters connected with the control and management of the railways by the said Board?”

No, Mr. Speaker, certainly not. (Laughter.)

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that large quantities of grain leave Caledon daily, per rail, uncovered and exposed to the weather, and that consignments of merchandise and of guano arrive daily, per rail, in a similarly exposed condition owing to the want of covering sheets or tarpaulins; (2) whether he is aware that the department has agreed to accept these uncovered consignments at the risk of the Government; and (3) whether he intends taking steps to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

replied that it was so; that large quantities of grain left Caledon uncovered and exposed to the weather. The reason was the insufficiency of tarpaulins. The railway authorities, however, had told him they had offered the Caledon people to bring the stuff here, and the railway to take the risk. A number of tarpaulins had arrived this week, and, to some extent, the grievance would be removed; but instructions had been given to cable to England for another 5,000 tarpaulins. He was afraid they could not be here to do all that was necessary; but they would be in time for next season, when the conditions would be better.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether he is aware that, in view of the decision of the Government of India to prohibit the further emigration of indentured coolies to Natal, steps are now being taken by certain sugar and tea growers to obtain a large number of such coolies before that prohibition comes into force; and, if so, (2) whether he is prepared to give the House such information as is in his possession with regard to the numbers of coolies it is proposed to import, and the names of importers; and (3) whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent this increased importation of coolies during the next few months?

The Government has no information regarding points (1) and (2). With regard to the third point, the Government is not prepared to take any steps to prevent the importation of coolie labour into Natal before July 1, provided that the provisions of the immigration laws of Natal are complied with.

asked the Minister of Lands whether, in view of the fact that the Railway Department has discontinued the payment of rebate on irrigation material, such rebate will in future be paid by the Irrigation Department; and, if not, what policy the Government proposes to adopt in regard to this matter?

replied that the matter was at present under consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether Mr. John Dyason is employed in the Fencing Department; (2) whether this is the same Mr. John Dyason whose services were dispensed with as branding inspector, Marico district, on October 31, 1908, on account of his having been convicted and sentenced by the Resident Magistrate of Zeerust to pay a fine of £25, or to undergo six months’ imprisonment, for deliberately roasting a oat to death?

The answer to (1) is “Yes,” and to (2) that Mr. Dyason was sentenced as stated, but for treating the oat in a cruel manner by burning its tail. On Mr. Dyason’s petition for a free pardon the Attorney-General held that from the terms of the sentence deliberate wrongdoing should not be deduced, and that it was doubtful whether an offence proceeding apparently from thoughtlessness or folly should be held to indicate an evil disposition of character. The Public Service Board thereupon decided that Mr. Dyason’s name should be restored to the register of persons eligible under the Public Service Act for appointment to the public service.

said he would like to call attention to the fact that a question which he give notice to ask had been omitted from the papers. It was to ask the Government what steps the Government intended to take to give effect to the recommendations of the House in regard to railwaymen’s grievances.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether, in view of the failure of the Transvaal Industrial Disputes Prevention Act to provide a satisfactory means of conciliation between employers and employed in recent cases of dispute in Johannesburg and Pretoria, it is the intention of the Government to repeal the whole Act, or to introduce such amendments as will make it effective?

said two strikes had taken place recently, one at Johannesburg by tramway employees, and the other at Pretoria by bricklayers. The second strike had not been in conflict with the Act, which provided that where there was a difference between employers and employees an inquiry should be held, and only a month after such an inquiry had been held could a strike take place. The Pretoria strike was in accordance with the Act; the Johannesburg strike, on the other hand, had not taken place in accordance with the Act. It would be necessary to amend the Act to prevent such lamentable disputes arising in the future. It was hoped to apply this Act, which had worked fairly well in the Transvaal, to the whole of South Africa, and to apply it in such a way as to get rid of the weaknesses now disclosed.

asked if it was contemplated to do that this session?

said he had already drafted the Bill, but it depended on the House whether the Act would be made to apply to the whole of South Africa this session or not.

moved that the Select Committee consist of ten members, and that Mr. Brain be a member of the committee.

seconded.

said the motion was wrong, in view of the fact that yesterday the House agreed that the number of the committee should be ten. All the hon. member had to do now was to move that Mr. Brain should be a member.

The motion was amended accordingly.

asked whether, seeing that the number of the committee had been fixed at ten, the Minister would not see his way to appoint some representative of Natal industries on it? It was quite true that they had a representative of Natal on the committee, but they thought that though he represented very important interests, he would not represent the coast industries of Natal.

The motion was agreed to.

said he wished to call attention to a very important matter in connection with a notice of motion by the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe): “That all the papers in connection with the Gaika Loop accident and the inquiry thereon be laid on the table of the House.” He (the Minister) stated that the evidence taken at the recent inquiry into the causes of the railway accident at Gaika Loop was in the hands of the Attorney-General, and that it was possible that a criminal prosecution might follow, and asked therefore whether the motion was in order?

ruled that as the subject matter of the motion was sub judice, it could not now be discussed by the House, but he was prepared to put the motion formally, and then to allow the debate to be adjourned.

said he was sorry he had not been informed of the state of affairs earlier, as his motion had been on the papers for some days. He had no desire to prejudice a case that might come before the Courts. The best thing they could do was to adjourn the debate.

moved that the debate be adjourned till Wednesday, 22nd inst.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for a return showing for the ports of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban the following: (1) Rates of pay to the several grades of men employed by the Harbour Commissioners; (2) overtime in each case; (3) regulations with regard to holidays; (4) regulations with regard to the supply of uniforms; (5) hours worked in each ease; and (6) date when last increases were paid. He said it was known that differences did exist, and that they were inevitable, owing to circumstances over which they had no control. There were certain cases where severe retrenchment had been practised, and it had been impossible to restore the amounts lost and the lost privileges; but in other cases the retrenchment was not so severe, and in some cases there was none at all, and the result was that at some ports men were being worse treated in other respects and doing the same work as men at other ports. They were being worse treated in respect to pay, and the other items he had put down in his motion. So they had this position, which had been brought about by conditions which had existed in the Cape. His object in moving as he did was that the House might have before it a comparison of the conditions of these men, with a view of having equality established.

seconded.

said he had to confess he could not exactly conceive the object of the motion. As the House was aware, prior to Union there were differences of pay and conditions of service at the different ports. That to a great extent existed at present. He would not exactly say it was not necessarily a hardship that men should be paid at one place more than at another; but there were various matters which affected the question, among which was the cost of living. He mentioned some time ago to the hon. member that a Commission was sitting to inquire into this matter, and had told him, when he moved in the matter by a resolution which covered all these questions, that an inquiry was being made, and that soon they hoped to bring the pay and conditions of service all over the Union as far as possible into uniformity. The thing was being pushed forward as expeditiously as possible, but it was a huge concern, and there were conflicting rules and rates of pay and conditions of service.

asked whether the Minister could tell them where the committee were now, and when they were likely to be in the various ports?

said that he would ascertain and supply the hon. member with the information.

said that there was a grievance in the Free State that they were not represented on the Commission. Was there, he asked, any special reason?

I was not aware the Free State had a harbour. (Laughter.) This only deals with harbours.

said that he was referring to railways and not to harbours, and he complained that when he put a civil question to the Minister he received an impertinent reply, and the Minister stalked out of the House.

said that the question could not be put to the Minister that day.

said that the Minister had beaten a hasty retreat —possibly the best way out of meeting the difficulty. He would like to know whether it was a fact that there was simply a Commission on paper and that it was not sitting. He was glad to see the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sauer) returning.

said that this Commission did not seem to be a visible, a tangible thing. He thought, however, that the men would be relieved by what the Minister had said. The motion was agreed to.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House it is desirable (1) that the Government shall during the present session, introduce legislation to amend the laws relating to the registration of Parliamentary voters in order to secure a more complete register of all persons qualified to vote, and in order to secure to persons who have changed their residence since registration the right to vote in the electoral division to which they have moved; and (2) that, in order to carry out the intentions of the Act of Union and enable public servants who may have been moved from one Province to another to retain their rights as voters, the laws of the Provinces which stipulate for a period of residence as a qualification for voters be immediately amended where necessary, so as to substitute residence within the Union for residence in any particular Province.” He said that since the recess the notice of motion that he had on the paper had been extended. The first part had a rather doubtful reception, and he proposed to deal with the second part first, as he hoped it would pass without any criticism. Hon. members would remember that provision was made in the Constitution for Pretoria being the administrative capital, and, in pursuance of that, a large number of Civil Servants were transferred to Pretoria during the last few months. It was also provided in the Constitution that the Provincial laws in regard to registration should remain in force until dealt with by the Union Parliament. The law in regard to registration in the Transvaal—where registration was now taking place—stipulated that a man could not be registered unless he had been resident for six months previously in the Transvaal. The intention of the Act of Union was to read “within the Union” in these provisions, wherever they occurred, about residence within the Province. The effect of the law was that those Civil Servants who had been transferred from different parts to the administrative capital had lost their right to vote for the places from which they came, and had failed to get a right to vote in the place to which they had been transferred. They had been disfranchised. That was never the intention of the Act of Union. All those who had made applications to have their names put on the roll in Pretoria had been refused as being ineligible. He felt that it should be urged on the Government to take the necessary steps to have an interpretation that residence in the Provinces, for this purpose, should be road “residence within the Union.” In regard to the first part of the motion, he thought that in view of the expressions of disapproval with which it was formerly received, hon. members had it in their minds that the proposal was intended to bring about something like the Australian system or the system that prevailed in the Transvaal in former years, by which men who had the right to vote could go at election time to any constituency, and practically go in large numbers, and improperly upset the balance. Nothing was further from his mind than that. What he wanted was that the Government should make provision to enable men to exercise the right which was given to them under the Constitution. Hon. members would remember that a very important matter was introduced in the Convention, namely, that of equal representation. He was a firm believer in such representation, because he thought, it was the best way of removing grievances, which were nominal, and not actual. Until they removed that sense of grievance, they would never have peace and contentment. When Responsible Government was introduced in the Transvaal, he (the speaker) and others endeavoured to get a provision inserted in the Constitution for equal representation. A promise was given, but not fulfilled. Representations were made to give facilities for changed addresses, and if his present motion were read, it would be found to deal with two classes of people—those who had changed their addresses and those who had obtained their qualification to vote since the register was closed. He would not quote all the laws of South Africa on the subject, but he would give one instance. In the Transvaal, the period of residence was six months, and supposing a man came to this country in the month of July last, it would take him two years, five months, and some days to get his qualification, That was the actual state of affairs, notwithstanding the fact that the law said that a man could get his qualification after six months’ residence, simply because of the accident of registration taking place every two years. That meant that two years was added to a man’s six months’ residence, which was his real qualification. He did not consider that such a state of affairs offered encouragement to the best class of immigrants to come to this country. But, apart from that, the spirit of the law should be carried out, and what was given by the one hand should not be taken away by the other. Now he came to the other class of person, the person who had changed his residence. Although hon. members were only familiar with those people on the land who did not move from one place to another, there was another class whose business in life was not with the land, but with the trade of the country, and who changed from one constituency to another. When hon. members opposite realised that these people had to follow their trade, they would agree that it was no discredit to them, and that it showed no sign of want of intention to remain in the country. They had to move, perhaps, only a mile in pursuit of their trade. The bricklayer and the carpenter, for instance, had to go where their work lay, and in the case of the miner, he went from mine to mine. But that did not mean that they left the country. After these people had been registered in one constituency, they moved to another constituency, and when an election came round they had to go back to their original constituency if they desired to record their votes at their own expense. It often meant a man losing a day’s pay and making other sacrifices. The present state of affairs was far from ideal, and lent itself too much to things which were undesirable. (Hear, hear.) He had avoided making any definite suggestion regarding the period of residence, because he thought it might be within the minds of some hon. members that the idea was to enable men to be shifted about for the purpose of influencing elections. He had purposely avoided putting down the period at a month, two months, or three months, but he thought that if a man went to a constituency legitimately, and was in residence there for three months, he had a fair claim to be regarded as a resident in that constituency. It would certainly be impossible to get a man to go to a doubtful constituency in the event of an election three months before, for the purpose of influencing the election. Therefore they were dealing with men who wanted to move legitimately in the pursuit of their business, and he asked hon. members to realise what sacrifices these people had to make if they desired to record their votes. It might be said that in large industrial centres the percentage of votes recorded was only 45, 55, or 65, whereas in other parts the percentage was as much as 80. but the smaller percentage might be more creditable when the sacrifices that had to be made were considered. These people had often to sacrifice a day’s pay and travel to another constituency at their own expense. He would like to get an expression of opinion from the Government as to whether it intended to remedy the present state of affairs. At the last election sometimes as much as 60 per cent. of the voters, he thought, had moved out of residence, perhaps 120 yards, perhaps miles, and perhaps from Braamfontein to Springs or from Pretoria to Pietersburg. There were other cases where men had moved from the Transvaal to some other Province, from the Cape Province to the Transvaal, and were they not going to give these people the right which was theirs under the Constitution? Were they going to break the promises which the Constitution made to them? When they considered the enormous extent to which this could go, he was not exaggerating when he said that in a large number of constituencies quite one-third of the voters had moved. He thought he could appeal with confidence to a considerable number of hon. members opposite to recognise the justice of his motion.

in seconding the motion, referred to the difficulties of registration in the large centres. It was the desire of everybody that those who were qualified should have reasonable facilities for being placed on the roll. They wanted to encourage citizenship in this country, and when a man was placed on the roll it brought home to him more pertinently than anything else the fact that he had an interest in the country. So far as the second part of the motion was concerned, the special circumstances of the time would indicate to the House the necessity of immediate steps being taken. It would be a crying shame if in view of the circumstances, this was not done. He pointed out that the conditions were new and that they should move with the times in this regard. He showed how in many eases people were disfranchised for two years, and said he considered that no bar should be placed in the way of those who desired and were qualified to appear on the list. They should encourage and not hinder people who wished to be registered—all reasonable assistance should be given them. With regard to the transfer question, he wished to back up the appeal of the hon. member for Pretoria East. Something should certainly be done by the Government, and that without delay. Was it reasonable, when a man came forward to be a citizen of this country, and owing to his occupation moved from the first place in which he was registered to another place, for the benefit of the country as well as his own, that he should be barred from the exercise of citizenship? He did not think it was reasonable, and he thought that the House would agree with him that it was not reasonable. So long as they got the necessary safeguards against the swamping of constituencies—and they could easily be obtained—there would be no danger in a system which he believed obtained in the Australian colonies. He thought the Government should make inquiries as to the course pursued in other countries, and then decide upon which could best be done here. He commended the matter to the attention of the Government, and hoped that something would be done. He went on to refer to the disabilities of the law in the Cape, and alluded to the fact that even in Cape Town, though it was a very large area, the registration officer was only called upon to furnish one list. The old law would not work under the new conditions, and unless they took steps to deal with these grievances they were going to do a great injustice to a great many people.

said that the House was indebted to the hon. member for Pretoria East for having put the case so plainly, and he might say that in the abstract he (the speaker) was in sympathy with the views that had been put forward. But he need scarcely tell the House that one of the most contentious measures that could be brought forward would be a measure dealing with the registration laws, and the question simply was: Was this the time to deal with a law which was so complicated and contentious? Was this session the time to bring such a measure forward? He might point out that in three of the Provinces a new registration would be completed this year, and in the Free State it would be carried out next year. Therefore, there did not seem to him to be much urgency about this very difficult and contentious measure. The whole question would have to be gone into very thoroughly, and there were various considerations which would have to be carefully studied, and he thought, having regard to the large amount of work the House had to deal with this session, the matter was one which would have to stand over until next year. He was sorry they were forced to that course, but he could see no possibility of getting through a big registration law for the whole country this session. In regard to the second part of the motion regarding the grievances of Civil Servants, who were removed from Cape Town to Pretoria, of course, it would be admitted there was a grievance, but he would point out that there were many other grievances under the existing law. It would take him a long time if he were to go into all the inequalities which existed under the different electoral laws. For instance, there was the motor-car, which was a more serious injustice under the electora laws than any other, for it affected the whole system in its very essence. He mentioned that one consideration to show they could not deal with this matter piecemeal. There were many other serious and far reaching grievances. It would, he thought, be necessary to legislate next year, and then the different principles which had been so ably put forward to-day would have to be argued much more exhaustively.

said he was simply astounded at the amount of sympathy and the little satisfaction they had got, from the Minister. The Minister had an objection to motor-cars. Well, the cure for motor-cars was to vote for this motion. If they allowed a man to vote at the place where he resided, he would not require to be conveyed by a motor-car. He might remind the Minister, too, that motorcars were not used by one side only. It had been equally in use by both sides, and for the same reason—to enable a man to travel to record his vote. Now, as showing the disabilities affecting certain people under the registration laws, he would point out that, in Johannesburg alone, in the constituencies on the Reef, no less than 17,000 removals were actually known of out of 48,000 electors. It was mostly the townsmen and mostly the working classes who were affected. Then the laws of the four Provinces differed in respect to registration. In Natal, for instance, there was no reason why a man should not vote in two constituencies. In the Transvaal they had a law which was at the root of their objection to the Cape system. That was, that there could be Field-cornets acting as registration officers, and there were no means really of revising their work. They required to revise the whole of the system to make it more just and fair. This affected the Labour party greatly. Did the Labour party desire, and would it support an honest, earnest desire to get representation where it failed to get representation at the present time—where it failed to get representation, because the working people were the moving population of this country? He would point out, in addition that there could be no question of the necessity for some different machinery to that which they had at the present moment. The member for Pretoria East simply wanted to make absolute certain safeguards. The register in itself was not so faulty as it had been in past years, but no register would be absolutely complete unless they provided for the appointment of a revising barrister or officer, who would be entirely above party politics. With regard to the second proposal, he was sorry that no provision had been made for the recording of the votes of these Civil Servants, who had been transferred through no fault of their own. Means ought to be found for dealing with the whole question of registration. It was certain that there was no desire to disfranchise those Civil Servants who had been transferred. He hoped that if a Bill were brought in by the Minister that it would provide for existing difficulties which were upon the register, and which had been mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria East.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) must not think that he was the only hon. member who wished a change in regard to the registration, or an improvement in that respect. He (Mr. Kuhn thought that he was the first person who had approached the Prime Minister with reference to that subject. There were in the Cape people who lived in tents, who, no matter how many sheep they might possess, were always disfranchised, because they did not live in a house. The Minister had stated that he could not bring in a Bill at the present stage, but promised that he would do so later. With that, he the hon. member) was satisfied, and he could not support the motion. Many of the people alluded to by the mover of the motion did not seem to feel dissatisfied with the present condition of affairs, but there were many people living in the country districts who considered that they had a distinct grievance.

pointed out that the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria East did not ask that they should give a man a vote if he were not entitled to it; it simply asked that he should be allowed to exercise the right of the franchise for which he was entitled. Ho (Mr. Alexander) was rather disappointed with the reply of the Minister of the interior, because it seemed to provide very little relief. It seemed to him that all the existing difficulties could be met by providing for a supplementary register, so that if a man had been transferred to Pretoria for six months, he would still be able to get upon the register. As an illustration, he referred the House to the system in Cape Town, which, besides having a biennial register, provided by its Constitution for a supplementary register, and anyone who was qualified could be put upon that. Of course, there were proper safeguards. It seemed to him anomalous that a man, whether he was resident in any part, of the Union, should not be allowed to exercise the franchise that he was entitled to in a different part of the Union. What they wanted was a supplementary register in addition to the biennial. Proceeding, Mr. Alexander said they were here to represent the people, and surely the first thing Should be that they should represent accurately the people of South Africa, and the Government should welcome any attempt to make this House correspond to the actual feeling of the country, and legislation of this kind was so urgent that, to his mind, it should take precedence over all other legislation. It was the duty of the Government, before any other legislation was introduced, to bring forward such legislation as would accurately represent the people. He hoped the Government would accept the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick). He quite recognised their difficulty under section 36 of the South Africa Act, but here was an opportunity of making the existing, register and supplementary register correspond, and see that the register was an accurate expression of the wishes of the people. He hoped, though the Government could not find it, possible to do anything this year, they would not close the door. (Cheers.)

said that he thought that the whole House felt that, if a change should be brought about anywhere it was in regard to the registration of voters—not in one respect, but in many respects. The hon. member who had just spoken (Mr. Alexander) seemed to convey that a little Bill would be all that would be necessary. No; what changing the existing system meant was a very big thing indeed, because of the extreme difficulty of the whole subject. No solution, so far, had been offered by the hon. members opposite of the difficulty to which they had alluded—which was, he would like to point out, but one phase of the whole question. The hon. member went on to relate a story of the registration of certain supposed soldiers, who, on being examined, could not give their officers’ names. There had been many of these election dodges in the past, he said. He hoped that there would be uniformity throughout the Union in regard to registration; and that there would be some qualification before a man could become a voter. The Cape qualification was an adequate one, although he was not prepared at that stage to say what the future qualification should be—but certainly not that a man should be a voter merely because he had attained his twenty-first year. They would have a voter, perhaps, but not necessarily a man, in the best sense of the word, or a citizen such as they wanted in this country. Was there any possibility of passing such a Bill during the present session, as had been alluded to? He did not think so, seeing the amount of discussion they had already had on “academic subjects”; and the large amount of important work which still had to be done. The motion should therefore be withdrawn.

said that he must congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria East upon having the sympathy of the Minister of the Interior in this matter. They on that bench had also had the sympathy of the Government, but had not found it of much practical advantage. The Labour party were bound to support the motion. They would infinitely rather it went a great deal further. They were only too anxious to see the electoral system improved, and would be prepared to sit until next August, if need be, for that purpose. He hoped the Minister would bring in a Bill dealing comprehensively with the whole of the electoral system in this country.

urged that if such important Work needed to be done, they ought to take off their coats and do it now. He went on to refer to the registration laws in Natal, and said that the Minister ought to see to it that these people who were disfranchised were allowed to exercise the vote.

submitted that, with the large amount of pub he business before them, this was not a fitting juncture to enter upon a large scheme of registration reform. He hoped the motion would be withdrawn. It was necessary in any reform to always provide safeguards to prevent the packing of constituencies.

urged that electoral reform should take the shape of abolishing constituencies and substituting State voting. They might also introduce manhood European suffrage and the Belgian ticket system.

said that, after the illuminating speech they had just listened to, electoral reform was quite easy. (Laughter.) There was, however, one point in which he and a good many others were not clear, and that was to the attitude of the Government in this matter. The first objection offered by the Minister of the Interior was that the matter was a contentious one, and the second was that it was not a matter of urgency, as in three out of the four Provinces new registers would shortly be completed, and there was no time to bring in a measure this session. Well, what he wanted to know was, whether, in the event of the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) withdrawing his motion, the Government would give a distinct promise that it would introduce next session a Bill dealing with election matters in which effect would be given to the principles laid down in the resolution before the House.

said that the motion had been introduced in order to secure that the disabilities, which had been inflicted in the past upon voters because of their moving from one place to another, should not exist any longer. He represented a constituency in which there were as many native voters as there were white voters, and a great many of the former, who travelled from one part of the Cape to another, suffered from the same disabilities as the Europeans did. In one district of his constituency the list of registered voters was reduced from 1,050 to 700. Most of those struck off were native voters, and a great injustice was done, because they had been on the list for 17 years, and had been suddenly struck off. Possibly they were struck off on account of political reasons, but, at all events, he had not got to the bottom of the matter. If they were not entitled to vote they should have been struck off long ago. The striking off of these voters Showed a rotten state of affairs.

said that as the Minister of the Interior was precluded from speaking again, he hoped the Right Hon. the Prime Minister would give an answer to the question by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin). It would merely be dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s for the Minister of the Interior, but some of the members on his side of the House were anxious to have a more precise answer. Would the Hon. Minister bring in a small measure to amend the present Act, and so remove the disabilities under which certain people laboured at present. He believed that the Act needed only to be an Act of one line substituting the word “Union” for the word “Province.” He hoped the Prime Minister would give a satisfactory answer.

said that he had nothing to add to what had been said by his colleague the Minister of the Interior (General Smuts). He had said that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present session dealing with that matter. The Cabinet had come to the decision that such legislation should not be introduced this year. As the Minister of the Interior had stated, such legislation would be introduced next year. During the recent election they had had a great deal of experience of the way in which the present Act worked, and in how far it fell short of the requirements of the country. There were a vast number of matters which had to be taken into consideration and duly weighed before legislation was introduced; and so it could not be expected of him to give a definite pledge that afternoon, beyond what his colleague had already stated. Therefore, he hoped that the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) would be satisfied with the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. They did not want, in regard to registration, to deal only with the case of Civil Servants, but with all people. Nor could they undertake to embody in future legislation the points mentioned by the mover.

said that no doubt the House was disappointed with the reply given by the Minister of the Interior, and also with the reply given by the Prime Minister. Civil Servants who were sent from one part to another regarded their votes as dear as any other subjects in South Africa, and the suggestion made to bring in a small measure would not occupy much time of the House, and justice would be done to all. He considered that if the motion was defeated it would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Civil Service. He moved, as an amendment, to omit all the words after “desirable” to the word “and” at the end of the first section.

seconded.

said he was much less disposed towards the amendment. (Hear, hear.) The original motion took up a logical ground, and there was much to be said for the principles expounded. Now they were asked to single out for special action one part of the community. He had sympathy with the class, but there was no policy in the amendment.

moved, as a further amendment, the deletion of the words, “public servants,” and the inclusion of the word “persons.”

seconded.

said he had listened attentively to what had been said, and while he realised the logic of the Minister of the Interior, he considered that one way or the other a reason had got to be found why the Government would not accept it. He did not accept the judgment that had been expressed, namely, that it would be impossible to carry out the proposal. There were ways of dealing with the matter. He hoped sincerely that hon. members would remember the expressions of sympathy, and that this Bill would be forthcoming next session. He would have willingly withdrawn if he had been given a definite answer.

We have said so.

said that while he thoroughly understood the amendments in regard to the second clause, what appeared on the paper did not confine the proposal to the Civil Service. He put forward the most prominent case, and if the grievances of that section were redressed, the grievances of the other people would be redressed. He pointed out that these servants were moved by the Government, and as a consequence of the Act of Union and the National Convention. In justice to the case, in justice to the people concerned, and in justice to his own sincerity, he must press the second clause.

The first clause was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Denver (Dr. Macaulay) was carried.

moved that the word “been” be deleted from the clause.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion as amended was put, and declared lost.

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

moved that, having in view the policy expressed by the Natal Government prior to Union, the Minister of Railways be requested to take into consideration the cases of those persons presently employed upon the South African Railways in Natal who suffered disabilities by reason of their having taken part in the strike of 1909, with a view, as far as possible, of restoring to them such emoluments and privileges as they might have been entitled to had no break in their service occurred. He said that the motion had for its object the reinstatement of a number of men employed on the South African Railways in Natal. It was now about two years since a great railway strike took place in Natal, and it would doubtless be remembered that this strike failed. When the men desired to return to their work, it was found that the Government were not in a position to reinstate some 300 or 400 of them. This was not because there was any desire to victimise these men in any way, but during the strike the Government had to engage other men, for whose employment they considered themselves responsible, and so certain men were excluded. Following the strike, a Commission of Inquiry was established. This Commission investigated the causes that led up to the strike, and the claims of the men, and it was found that, although the men had not entirely established the justice of their claims and complaints, still they had proved them in many cases. The motion had for its object to ask the Minister and the Government to continue the policy which the Natal Government adopted with relation to the men who had unfortunately taken part in this strike. The question of the reinstatement of the men had been raised in the Natal Parliament, and it was established that the men had been very badly advised. In fact, the actual leaders and instigators of the strike were men who took no part in public demonstrations, and who would have left their dupes in the lurch and returned to their work at the earliest opportunity. All the motion asked was that when vacancies arose these men would be taken back. As a result of the policy that had prevailed so far, the great bulk of the men that were kept out at the conclusion of the strike had been reinstated, and had been placed on full benefit; in fact, they had not suffered any disabilities whatever. Those who had suffered disabilities numbered very few, but they included cases of men who had 27 years’ service to their credit, and who had lost all their superannuation Tights. He assured the Minister that he had not been invited by the men to bring the matter before Parliament, but by reason of the extraordinary tolerant attitude which the Minister of Railways had taken up with regard to employees generally, he would appeal to him to extend his sympathy and make one clean sweep of this unfortunate occurrence. He was not asking the Minister to take back men who had taken a prominent part in the strike, and whom the Government had excluded from employment, but simply for the application of the rule that had been set down by the Natal Government.

seconded the motion. He believed that the Minister would approach the matter sympathetically, and he believed he would do what was right. Personally, he had no knowledge of these particular men who were affected, so that he could not speak personally upon them except from the point of view that he did not think there was any necessity now to penalise them. He believed that the Minister, after his attention had been drawn to the facts, would give the motion his sympathetic attention.

said he was surprised when he saw the motion on the paper, because, quite apart from the question of whether these men were treated badly or not, it was a very unusual thing, and, he ventured to think, a very dangerous thing, if Parliament was going to take charge of the Executive and to approve of this. Was it for Parliament to direct what the Executive should dot It was all entirely novel principle, and he was sure in the House of Commons—to nowhere better could they go for precedents—such a motion would be dismissed. Unless the hon. member withdrew, he would have to ask the House to negative it in the best interests of the House and the public. While they had this form of government they must leave the responsibility with the Executive, and then Parliament could approve. If they were going to carry on the business of the country in this way, that the Parliament was going to direct the Government as to what it had to do in all minor matters, then he did not know where it was going to end. He would appeal to the House to recognise its duty and the responsibility of the Government, and then Parliament could say what it thought of the matter. As regarded this particular matter, he had no animus against those concerned, or for what they did. He did not know the circumstances, and, further, he was not prepared to express any opinion. The facts, so far as he could ascertain, were that a certain number of men went on strike, and the Natal Government re-employed the great majority. The others were given until a certain date to return. The great majority did come in, and they retained their rights; that was to say, the rights they had lost by having left the service. This was secured by an Act. A certain number of men did not come in by the date allowed. Subsequently they were taken back on the distinct understanding that they should be taken on as new employees. Was that a matter for the House to decide on? If his hon. friend had come to him and asked him to consider the merits of the case, he would have been quite prepared to do so, and still was. (Cheers.) He hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

said he would like to take the earliest opportunity of asking permission to withdraw the motion. He thought the Minister would grant that he did not make an endeavour to see him before the motion came on. However, he was perfectly willing to accept the hon. gentleman’s assurance, and would withdraw.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved that the petition of J. P. Steytler and 210 other inhabitants of Parys, in the district of Vredefort, praying for the construction of a wagon bridge over the Vaal River at Parys, presented to the House on December 12, 1910, be referred to the Government for inquiry and report.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from C. Searle and five others of the company, “Messina Bros., Coles and Searle, Limited,” praying for a refund of a fine inflicted for unstamped share certificates, presented to the House on December 15, 1910, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for inquiry and report. He said he hoped the House would take this as a formal resolution. The petition was from people who were fined owing to ignorance, and they claimed they were prepared to show that, partly owing to the fault of certain officials, they were penalised for no fault of their own whatever. All he asked was that the petition would be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and they would have to abide by their decision. He believed the case should be investigated, and thought it was only just that the evidence these people had to bring forward should be heard by the House.

seconded.

said he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the motion, and he thought, if the hon. member (Sir Edgar Walton) would listen to him, he would find that it was not so formal a matter as he seemed to think. He would go further. If his hon. friend had reflected further on this motion, he would realise that very important principles were involved, and principles which should not be submitted to the House for consideration. He wanted to be perfectly clear about the merits of the matter. He personally knew nothing about the circumstances under which the petitioners were fined, and wanted to keep a perfectly open mind upon it. Upon the facts he would say nothing. It might be that, upon investigation, these fines might be remitted, but the important question involved was not that it was whether this House would relegate the function of the Government to a Select Committee. (Government cheers.) That was the important question involved.

It is childish. It does not relegate anything.

said his hon. friend still thought it should be referred to the committee. He would say it should not. It was a thing that should be referred to the Executive Government, and that alone. Presuming his hon. friend’s motion was accepted, and it was referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and that they recommended to the House that these fines should be remitted, it would be an utterly unconstitutional thing for the House, without a message from the Governor, to remit public moneys. The Committee on Public Accounts were sent up to deal with public accounts. This was not a question of public accounts.

said it was not the function of the Public Accounts Committee, and they would neutralise almost entirely the function of the Public Accounts Committee if they turned it into a sort of body to investigate every grievance in regard to taxation or anything else. His hon. friend, if he would allow him to say so, had taken the wrong course in this matter. He ought to have moved for papers, and then, if necessary, he could have moved for a separate Committee of Inquiry, or moved a substantive motion.

said he recognised that it was no use trying to get a resolution carried in that House if the Government opposed it. He could not congratulate the Minister of Finance nor the member for Victoria West upon their attitude towards the matter. What better could the petitioners have done than come to that House, and what committee of that House was better able to consider a case of this kind, which was purely a matter of account? In this matter the officials, in his opinion, were as much to blame as the people, who would have paid the stamps if they had known it was requisite at the time the business was turned into a limited company. They had been penalised, not because they had committed a wrong, but because they had neglected to carry out the requirements of the law. They had been made to pay the stamps and a fine of five times the value. In all tine circumstances, he should be prepared, if no objection were raised, to amend his motion, so that the matter should be referred to the Government for consideration.

said that he could not have accepted the motion in its original form, but in its amended form it was in order.

It was agreed to omit all the words after “referred to” for the purpose of inserting “the Government.”

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

moved that the petitions from C. P. Hanelman and 142 others and J. A. van Niekerk, sen., and 78 others, inhabitants of the Electoral Division of Prieska, praying for railway communication between Prieska and Gordonia, and presented to the House on the 3rd instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that all papers and correspondence relating to the purchase of a farm in the Transvaal Province for Dinizulu be laid upon the table of the House, together with a return showing: (1) The name of the seller and date of purchase; (2) the price paid and extent of the property; (3) the average value of land in the vicinity; and (4) the date on which the seller became the registered proprietor of this property and the price paid by him to the then owners. He said that this matter was of some considerable interest, and had been discussed at some length through the press. He did not want to make himself responsible for the statements made there, but it would appear to be correct that the Government, in purchasing a farm for the purpose of locating Dinizulu, selected a property in Middelburg, which had only lately been acquired by someone else in Pretoria, named Michaelson. This transaction appeared, on the face of it, to show considerable intelligent anticipation of the Government’s intentions. There was a material profit on the transaction, and the impression was that by some means or other information had been acquired which ought not to have been properly at the disposal of any individual—information which enabled this individual to make a profit out of the transaction. He wanted to say this he was not making any charge or insinuation, nor did he associate himself with the insinuation that had been made against any department of the Government, but he thought it was right that this matter should be cleared up, and although he put down his motion to ask for the papers, he thought it would be of more service, and it would certainly be more wise, if the Hon. the Minister of Lands would make a statement that would clear the matter up now. It was difficult to deal with this question without giving currency to what might be entirely improper reports, but lie had had many communications on the subject, and others had had them, too, and the impression was that there were people who made it their business to find out what the Government was going to do, to get information in some way, and to trade upon it. He knew that was done In connection with the Union buildings in Pretoria. He knew the individuals who made profits, but he was certain the Ministers had nothing to do with it. It was essential that this matter should be cleared up so that they might know positively that the work of the Government was being carried on not only by the Ministers, but by the departments and all associated with them, absolutely in a clean and satisfactory way. Many of the members would like to know why Dinizulu had been placed in this particular part. Why should a convicted prisoner who was released from gaol not be treated as others, and why should he have the right to choose his own domicile, more or less? But even if these things were conceded, was there not other land that the Government could have acquired, and was that the average cost of land in the district? Would it not have been more clearly proper for the Government, knowing that there must have been some leakage of information, to bar this particular man, bar the farm, and go elsewhere? That was what one would expect. He did not say that there was no answer to what he had said. He made no charge, and did not know the facts. He had seen the records of the price of the farm in the Deeds Office, and that was sufficient for him to ask for an explanation.

seconded.

said that he was glad that the question had been brought before the House, because it give him an opportunity of making the whole position clear, and contradicting certain false statements which had been placed before the public. At the time of Dinizulu’s release, arrangements were made to give him a farm in the Transvaal, where he could settle down. It was at first intended to give hint Some Government ground in the north of the Transvaal, but nothing suitable could be found. It was not the case, as the hon. member had stated, that Dinizulu was allowed to pick and choose and determine where his domicile was to be. He had made one representation to the Government, however, which was: that he should not be sent to the northern part of the Transvaal, owing to East Coast fever: and the Government felt that it would be impossible to send him to a part of the country where that disease was raging and where cattle might, with plenty of water, suffer. What was wanted was a farm near the railway line and easy of access—a place in a good part of the country, and in a healthy situation. After looking for a couple of months for a suitable farm, his (General Botha’s) attension had been drawn to the farm in question. He would like to say at that stage that what had been done had been done by himself; he took the whole responsibility upon himself, and if anything was wrong, he was to blame, and none of the other Ministers. Personally, he was of opinion that that farm was one of the best in the Middelburg district. The next thing he had to find out was the price for which it could be obtained. He found that there was not a single owner, but a number of owners of undivided portions, some of whom were averse to selling the place; and the farm, it seemed, belonged to an estate. Some of these people lived on the farm; others were in various parts of the country; while there were certain of the owners who were minors who had to be considered too; and if the farm were transferred, application would have to be made to the Courte of Law in regard to their share. Then he found out that Mr. Michaelson was also trying to acquire the coal rights on the farm. At that stage (General Botha was understood to say), there being two purchasers in the field, and there being seven or eight joint owners to deal with, who lived in different parts of the country, he thought it was impossible to buy the farm. Mr. Michaelson stated that he was looking for the coal rights only, and he would agree to the Government purchasing the farm if he held the coal rights. That was an impossible position, and the Government could not do such a thing. But, as the place was such an excellent one, and as a part of it could be used for purposes of closer settlement, it was put to Mr. Michaelson whether, if £2 10s. per morgen were offered, he was not prepared to get the consent of the owners to sell, and make the necessary application to the Court on behalf of the minors. After Mr. Michaelson had agreed and obtained all these rights, he came back to him (General Botha), and said that he had obtained them and wanted them for himself, as the coal rights were so valuable. His colleague (General Smuts) and himself informed him that they would have to keep him to his word, and that they would take transfer of the farm. Now, unfortunately, they found that misleading and false information had been published. It was stated that Mr. Michaelson had given £3,000 for the farm, and had made £8,000 on it. That was totally misleading and false. Some newspapers subsequently withdrew that statement. From that had resulted all that unnecessary criticism. The Government had acted correctly and bona fide all along. The farm had been purchased by the Government at a price which was below its actual value. The right hon. member quoted certain prices of farms in the neighbourhood, within a ten-mile circle—prices, which, he said, had been obtained during the preceding twelve months. There was another Rietfontein, separated from those in question by a strip of ground for which the following prices had been obtained for three parts: £8 12s. 6d., £9 3s. 6d., and £9 5s. 6d. per morgen. Another farm near by, Goed Hoop, had been partly sold at £2 a morgen, and one which he thought his hon. friend opposite had purchased, at £2 per morgen. Figures for other farms in the immediate neighbourhood were £2 12s., £3, and £2 14s. per morgen. If the farm in question were put on the market at present, he was sure that the Government could get £3 a morgen for it. He was surprised to learn that the price was £2 10s. per morgen, and thought it was one of the best speculations which had been made by the Government, seeing that the farm was such an excellent one. The coal rights made it very valuable, too, and the Witbank Mine was in the neighbourhood. When Mr. Michaelson had come to him, he felt that there was something in what he said about his retaining the coal rights, but his colleague had been too strong for him. In conclusion, he regretted that the newspapers had grasped at such a straw, and had tried to blacken his character unnecessarily. If they had come direct, tb him they would have got all the information from him; but they should not have gone spreading these rumours and attacking persons, as had been done, which should have been beneath their dignity.

congratulated the Government on their bargain in obtaining Rietfontein. It was an excellent agricultural farm, and, in addition, eminently suitable for horse-breeding. There was a large quantity of water on it, and he only regretted that the Government had not bought it for the purpose of establishing a labour colony. They might be sure that farms in that district were good ones if they considered that the pioneers had picked them for themselves. Proceeding, the speaker mentioned the names of several farms in the neighbourhood, together with those of the Voortrekkers who had originally occupied them. Three portions of Rietfontein North had recently been sold at £8 11s. and £9 3s. 3d, per morgen. Rietfontein itself was flanked on both sides by working coal mines. There was a great demand for agricultural land in the neighbourhood. He quoted facts and figures relating to recent transactions in proof of this contention. The coal measures on Rietfontein made it worth fully £10 a morgen. If the farm were his he would not part with the surface rights at less than £5 a morgen. It was close to Middelburg, 11 minutes from Witbank by train, and within a stone’s throw of Uitkyk Station. He was sorry to see that there were always people ready to throw mud at the Government, and to harass them as hounds would harass the, fox.

said there was a stack of documents in connection with the matter, and the hon. member would be at liberty to select what were required so that these might be laid on the table. The speaker touched on the negotiations, and said that at one stage certain formalities were insisted upon so that a good opportunity might not be lost, for the owner had been anxious—and was, he understood, still as anxious—to take back the farm. He thought that so far as the Government was concerned, they had got the best of the transaction.

The motion was agreed to.

Statement of Accounts, C.S.A. Railways, 1st July, 1909, to 30th May, 1910. and report thereon by the Railway Auditor