from inhabitants of Boshof, for railway communication for the North-western districts of the Orange Free State.

from residents of Vryburg, against the proposed abolition of the Master’s Office at Kimberley.

from J. Pratt, of Libode, Pondoland, a pensioner.

from residents of Warrenton and Griqualand West, against the abolition of the Master’s Office at Kimberley.

from residents of Beaconsfield, against the proposed abolition of the Master’s Office in Kimberley.

from the Municipality of Clocolan, praying that further Asiatic immigration to stopped.

from residents of Kopjes, O.F.S., against the legalisation of marriages between Europeans and coloured persons.

from the Presbytery, Dutch Reformed Church, Utrecht, praying that the Solemnisation of Marriages Bill may be amended.

from Gerrit Bastiaanse, teacher.

from inhabitants of Kroonstad, for railway extension from Kroonstad to Vierfontein.

from residents of Hankey, Gamtoos, and Klein River, for construction of a railway.

from residents of Kimberley, against the proposed abolition of the Master’s Office.

from P. H. S. Bezuidenhout, J. R. Jacobson, and L. J. Leclus, for permission to practise as healers and doctors of mecana-therapy and masseurs.

from S. G Joubert. Education Department.

from J. P. Russouw, widow of J. W. H. Russouw.

from E. Clayton, teacher.

from E. C. J. van Rensburg, teacher.

from inhabitants of Zitzikamma, Knysna, for removal of irregularities in connection with the monthly auction sales.

from John Maxon, ex-Harbour employee, East London.

Government Mining Engineer (Transvaal), year ended 30th June, 1910; rates of pay, horse and other allowances to Volunteer and Active Militia Forces.

Chief Inspector of Sheep, Cape, for 1900 to 1909, inclusive.

said that before they proceeded with the business of the House he wished to say that there were various rumours in circulation to the effect that the Ministry had at last, succeeded in completing their personnel. They heard that the Ministry had got an additional member, and he hoped, therefore, the Prime Minister would let the House know if these rumours were correct, and if the Ministry now consisted of ten strong men. (Laughter.)

said he had much pleasure in announcing that the portfolio of Commerce and Industries, which bad been vacant since the resignation of the Right Hon. Sir Frederick Moor, had now been accepted by Colonel the Hon. G. Leuchars, C.M.G., D.S.O., the hon. member for Umvoti. (Cheers.)

resumed the debate on his motion for papers in connection with the Gaika Loop railway accident. He desired first of all to state his objects in asking for the papers. In the first place he thought one person had been unduly stigmatised, and a very grave implication putt upon the engine-driver, who was merely carrying out his duties, as he hoped to show. Secondly, he wanted to bring to the notice of the House the condition of affairs existing in the Railway Department, which he had believed contributed largely to the accident, which was the worst South Africa had known since the Glencoe accident. He was aware that the subject was a technical one, but it was necessary to bring to the notice of the Government and the House certain facts that had come to his notice. On the night of the disaster by which so many lives were lost, unnecessarily lost he ventured, the load of the train was 218 tons tare. Probably the total load, including passengers and luggage, was from 250 to 240 tons. If that were so, it was perfectly clear that that train could not keep up to schedule time. The train was bound to lose time when going up gradients, and in order to keep to time it was necessary for the engine-driver to make up time on the down grade and on the levels. It was certain, both from the evidence laid before the Court of Inquiry and from the facts which had come to his knowledge, that the load of the train was from 230 to 240 tons, and it was clear that if the driver’s instructions were to keep up to time, then he was only doing what he was expected to do by the Railway Department, and if the accident was due to some extent, at any rate, though not entirely, to a greater speed, then it was necessary to see whether the driver was or was not to blame. First of all, it had come to his notice that certain drivers of trains had received telegrams from the Divisional Office instructing them to make up time. As he had already said, it was only possible for a train with a load of 230 to 240 tons to make up on the down grades and on the levels, and if the driver was expected to make up time and to keep the schedule time, then it was no fault of his that the train went over the embankment. He had a statement, which was no doubt absolutely correct. During the inquiry a number of railway officials were called, and one of them—the Locomotive Superintendent— said that it was against the interests of drivers to make up time. Of course, he meant that the drivers were paid by the hour, and, therefore, it was against their interests from a monetary point of view to make up time. It did not come out, however, that the engine-drivers, and this particular engine-driver, had received telegrams ordering them to make up lost time and keep to the schedule time. If these telegrams were sent, it was perfectly obvious that they must have compelled the drivers to drive at a faster speed than otherwise. These telegrams were at the disposal of the Government. There were copies in the Divisional Superintendent’s office in East London, and the Minister of Railways would have no difficulty in satisfying himself that they had been sent. Since the accident these telegrams had ceased, and instructions had been sent to stationmasters to make up time by not detaining trains at stations. That was a matter which did not come up at the Court of Inquiry. Another fact that did not come out was that one engine-driver—he believed there were several—had been fined for not maintaining schedule time, in spite of the fact that the load of the train was excessive. If these statements were correct, then there was little doubt that if they were to avoid accidents in future, the practice of sending instructions to engine-drivers to make up time must cease. He wanted to point out that the danger of accidents was not only connected with the making up of time, but owing to the mixed nature of the rolling-stock that was used in the composition of trains since Union. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that trains were mixed, they had increased the speed.

The speed has not been increased.

The speed has been increased.

Not everywhere.

In some cases materially increased.

I say not everywhere.

We all know perfectly well that on the branch lines trains are running, and will continue to run, at a speed which is much smaller than on the main lines. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the question of increasing the speed of trains had been considered quite recently. Only a couple of months ago. When he was up the line, he found a number of railway officials considering the question of increasing the speed of the trains running between East London and Johannesburg—on the very line upon which the accident occurred. Proceeding to deal with the constitution of the Court of Inquiry, the hon. member said it was first proposed that it should be a departmental inquiry, and it was only after pressure had been brought to bear on the Minister of Railways that the Court which inquired into the accident was appointed. Even on that Court of Inquiry there was a majority of officials in the Government service. Furthermore, it had practically no power whatever. It had no power to administer the oath to witnesses, or even to summon them. He understood that that was the law, and if it were so, then it was high time the law was altered. Colonel Crewe added that it came out on the fifth day of inquiry that there had been a previous accident at that spot, due to the same cause—excessive speech-and it was only when a man came down from Aliwal North, who was not connected with the railway, that that had come out. Surely the fact that that previous accident had taken place must have been known to the Railway Department, and surely the question must have arisen in their, minds whether that curve was a safe one to travel over. In spite of the former accident, no caution had been given to drivers about not going at an excessive speed over that curve. Surely it must give one to think that only on the fifth day had that matter come out, and that it occurred to them that an accident had occurred there previously. And that showed the dangers which might attach to the transportation system—under which it behoved every official of the Railway Department to back up each other, so that they all stood or fell together. Under the old system, with the separate departments, each department tried to show what it could do, and how to do its best. That had all been done away with, and he questioned whether it was in the interest of the general public. So long as these Courts of Inquiry were composed as they were now, so long would the public not be satisfied that these accidents were properly inquired into. The only thing which could prove the “innocence of the Railway Department, if he might say so, was an absolutely impartial inquiry, with power to call witnesses on oath. He did not mean that there should be such an inquiry into every little accident; but in these major accidents, where there was a great loss of life, and serious damage to property, he ventured to say that they would not be satisfied until the law was changed. He now came to a much more unpleasant matter, a more personal matter, to a certain extent—one which he thought demanded the attention of the House. Colonel Crewe went on to refer to what had happened on February 14 in the House when the Minister had been asked to lay the papers in connection with the Gaika Loop accident on the table of the House. He had reported that as the papers had been sent to the Attorney-General, as the matter was sub judice, he could not at that time do so: and the Speaker had ruled accordingly. “I say that these papers were not with the Attorney-General, proceeded Colonel Crewe, “and were not under the consideration of any legal officer of the Government, and I challenge him (Mr. Sauer) to publish the papers and the letter in which he forwarded the papers to the Minister of Justice for inquiry, and asked for his opinion on the subject of prosecution. I will tell the House why I make this statement. I have had a letter from East London, dated February 15, a day after the statement was made in the House, and I am informed that the engine-driver whose conduct was under consideration had been informed, prior to February 15, that there was to be no prosecution against him, or that, there would be; but be was ordered to return to his duties. If that is the case, I venture to say that if the papers are put on the table, it will be found that at the particular time when the Minister said that the papers were sub judice they were not sub judice.” Continuing, Colonel Crewe said that he had wondered somewhat what the Minister’s motives were for making such a statement to the House, and it had occurred to him that there were only two points which could be considered. One was that the Minister of Railways was unaware that these papers had been decided upon, and that the case was no longer a question which could be, or had to be, or was still being, referred to the Minister of Justice. If that was the case, all that he could say was that the Minister of Railways was singularly incompetent in the administration of his office. (Laughter.) The other alternative was to apply another term to the statement made by the Minister, and to let him adapt himself to the old Dutch proverb which said: “I am not a slave to my word.” (Laughter.) Either the Minister was extremely badly served by his private secretary—which he (Colonel Crewe) did not think the case from his own experience when in office—because private secretaries brought to one’s notice any notice of motion or matter in the House which affected one; or he could not understand why that statement should have been made, because there was no reason for it. The Government was not being attacked. The hon. member next complained of the manner in which Mr. Sauer replied to questions which were put to him saying that they were treated in a spirit of befoolery which one found in a theatre. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha) was discussing railways the other day, the Minister said that there were no harbours in Bloemfontein, although a railway matter was being dealt with. They had had to stand a good deal of bantering from the Minister which was not in accordance with the proper conduct of business in the House, and did not conduce to amicable relations on both sides of the House, and would redound on the Minister, and make it extremely difficult for him to carry his business through the House. He hoped that the hon. gentleman would feel that when these matters were brought forward they were brought forward without any intention of damaging any member of the Government or the Government, but that many of these matters were necessary in the interests of the whole country.

We have had a lecture on manners which, coming from so high an authority, will, I am sure, have great weight. (Ministerial laughter.) I have listened to many attacks upon me, and I don’t know that I dislike them very much, but certainly when they are of such a feeble or spiteful character as the last they can only redound upon the person who makes them. It is the first time in my life that I have heard a man who both produces the evidence and then sits as judge upon it. We are asked for the evidence of the inquiry, and I think every man, every fair-minded man—of course, we are not all fair-minded—

“Hear, hear.”)

Would first have read the evidence before pronouncing judgment, but not so with this learned gentleman. (A laugh.) He furnishes the evidence him self, and goes to all sorts of back stairs and gets the evidence by hook or crook; evidence which is not on oath; gets it in office and out of office, and then sits as judge upon it. Why, then, ask for the evidence? It is obvious. The hon. gentleman has an old standing grievance against me because J so often found it my duty to deal with him in public life on the floor of this House. He has now an opportunity of throwing mud, and I leave you to judge how far he has thrown it. The Minister of Railways and Harbours went on to say that he would have thought that in presenting a matter like that, where it was in the interest of Parliament, and primarily in the interest of the railways, to do all that was possible to, prevent a recurrence, it should be approached in a fair and an impartial spirit, but not approached in the party spirit in which it had been, and which he said was most deplorable. He (Mr. (Sauer) had said that that matter would be dealt with when the evidence had been laid on the table of the House; and cut that great performance short. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said he would be very pleased to lay all the evidence on the table, and he would be very glad after members had read it, to have a discussion or any suggestions which would tend to prevent, the likelihood of accidents on the railways. Now, he might say that as soon as the accident occurred he caused an inquiry to be instituted. It was true that the majority of the people he proposed at that time to put on the Commission were railway people, but he saw the reasonableness of the representations— there was no pressure—that the Board should consist more of the non-official element. And here let him say, that when he came into the office of Commissioner in the Cape, he found that in all these inquiries at the time this learned pundit on railway matters—(laughter)—was in office all these Commissions were purely official. It was he (Mr. Sauer) who introduced the principle of having outside people on these inquiries. He had always been in favour of having them as far as possible unofficial, though he might say that the chairman of the Commission (Mr. Sampson) had said that the one official on the Commission (Mr. Tippett) give the most valuable and impartial assistance possible. As to the Commission not being able to take evidence on oath, that was not his (Mr. Sauer’s) fault. It was the law. This Commission had exactly the same power as any other Commission that had sat with regard to railway accidents. It was a matter for consideration whether the powers should not be enlarged. Much larger powers were given in other parts. Now, with regard to the facts of this matter. In the first place, the Commission found that the permanent way was in excellent order, and that the rolling-stock was in satisfactory condition. They found that the driver was a steady, sober man, and knew the road. In fact, the chairman of the Commission said that the department came extremely well out of the inquiry. He (Mr. Sauer) thought the finding of the Commission was right, and that it was owing to excessive speed that the accident happened. Now he was told that there were telegrams from people saying that when trains were not running up to time, the engine-drivers must make it up, and so on. Well, if he thought the authority was sufficiently good, he would make inquiries, but be that as it may, he said that there ought not to be such telegrams, and that a man should not be hurried over the road, if by so doing life and property were endangered. Now, with regard to the speed; it seemed to him that that was the whole point. First let him say that they had been told that there had been accidents at this place before. Well, there was an accident thirty years ago, when an engine got off the rails; he believed that the reason there also was excessive speed. Then there was subsequently another slight accident, when spikes were driven between the points. Both were slight accidents. Now, the general instructions were that, on an eight-chain curve, the speed should not exceed 25 miles an hour. Mr. Sauer read the regulations, and said it was agreed that it was most difficult for even old drivers to tell the speed at which they were running. Now, it seemed to him, that the only way in which they could meet that was by having speed indicators. In the Transvaal they had got about sixty of these, and had fitted about twenty of them to passenger trains. The Railway Board had gone into the matter, and had come to the decision that all passenger trains should be fitted with these speed indicators. That would be done with all passenger trains at (least, as soon as possible. They might issue what instructions they liked, but unless this were done they would be useless. He did not think at could be said that in this country railway accidents were excessive. It bad been suggested that recent accidents were due to the change in the transportation system, but be (Mr. Sauer) did not believe that that had anything to do, with them. Well, as he had said, everything that could be done would be done in this matter. To him it was a matter of the greatest sorrow that such a catastrophe should have happened. He had come to the conclusion that the only thing that could be done immediately with a view to lessening the chance of accidents was to enable the drivers to see at what speed they were running. Steps had been taken, and would be continued until all the engines attached to passenger trains at least were supplied with these speed indicators. He was looking that very morning at an Act of Parliament in one of the Dominions which made provision for (the constitution of courts in these cases of inquiry, and it was his intention, perhaps not that session, but at the earliest possible moment, to introduce legislation giving such Courts full power. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said that in the year 1909 the railways of South Africa carried 27 million passengers without any fatality as the result of a collision. In 1910 thirty-three and a half million people were carried, with the same result. With the curves and wash aways that we had, he did not, think we had done very badly, but that was no reason why every human effort should not be made to reduce accidents to an absolute minimum: He would have the very greatest pleasure in laying the evidence before the House, and he would be glad to receive suggestions from any quarters as to what more could be done to secure the safety of the public. He hoped to lay the papers before the House in a day or two. With regard to what had been said as to the evidence being sub judice, he was not aware at the time that the Attorney-General had given his fiat, for neither his private secretary nor anyone else had, brought it to his notice.

said the dangerous curves on the Border line should be done away with. (Cheers.) It would be almost criminal not to carry out that work. (Hear, hear.)

said his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer), instead of answering the statement made by the hon. member for East London, more than once tried to secure cheap cheers from a certain number of hon. gentlemen sitting behind him, who seemed not to have made themselves acquainted with the accident.

Quite wrong.

said that when it was recognised that the hon. member for East London was the Parliamentary representative of the town from which the train started, and that a large number of his constituents travelled by it, surely it was his duty to his constituents, to the House, and to the country, to bring before the House all the (facts at his disposal. The gravamen of the charge was that the House had been prevented for a considerable time from discussing the question owing to a statement previously made by the Minister of Railways that the matter was sub judice. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) hoped this would be an example to the Minister of Railways not to make authoritative statements which he was not able to substantiate. He had no right to make statements to the House which prevented it from discussing important public questions unless he had documentary evidence to prove that he was correct. His hon. friend was always a “stickler” for the rights of Parliament and the constitutional privileges of the House. His hon. friend should not have jeered at the hon. member for East, Lon don, and should not have used expressions which were not worthy of a Cabinet Minister. When an hon. member did his duty it was no answer from the Ministerial benches to say that it was brought forward by a party hack for party purposes. When his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) took as much interest in his constituency and the country as the hon. member for East London always had taken, then there might be some justification for retort, but certainly not for a vulgar retort of that kind. The Opposition was not going to be debarred from bringing forward public questions by the jeers and gibes of hon. gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial benches. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) had made a most incorrect statement that afternoon, although he did not think the hon. member had done so with any desire to mislead the House. The Minister stated that when he came into office he introduced regulations for having an inquiry of a public character into railway accidents. His (Sir Thomas’s) memory carried him back to railway accident incuiries in the Peninsula in which Mr. Blackstone Williams—one of our best Magistrates—represented the Government. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) agreed: with everything that the Minister had said as to the railways being run with a wonderfully small percentage of accidents, but surely it was their duty to profit by experience, and reduce that small percentage to a smaller percentage still. If there was anything in the theory that different classes of rolling-stock being coupled together added to the liability of accidents, the Minister of Railways should welcome the matter being brought before the House. When he (Sir Thomas) tried to obtain money for the purchase of uniform rolling-stock the hon. member (Mr. Sauer) charged him with ordering far more rolling stock than the country required. There was another matter the Minister should inquire into—that was that with the payable condition the railways were in now we should not introduce much more of the check rail system than we had done in the past. Continuing, the hon. member said he did not quite agree with all his hon. friend the member for East London had said with regard to (the transportation system. He did not think the system was of such a, character as to shield railway officials, because under the old system each department was a law unto itself. Under the transportation system, they had one man in complete charge, who was responsible for the road under his charge. So far as this particular section was concerned, he did not think they had a more competent officer than the one who was in charge there. He had distinguished himself as being one of the most hardworking and intelligent officers in the employ of the Government. There was a great deal to be said in favour of both systems, but he did not think it was fair to say that the system was at fault. He did think that the thanks of the House ware due to the hon. member for East London for bringing this matter before the House. He did not think the Minister was fair when he said that he would have made inquiries into the matter if the information had come from any other source. He must know that these things had been said over and over again, and it was his duty to take every possible step, So that the fullest inquiry was made. He (the speaker) remembered speaking to Sir Thomas Erice—when he was General Manager of the Gape Government Railways—on the question of engine-drivers making up speed, and the reply of Sir Thomas was similar to the statement that had been made by the hon. member for East London. If they wanted an engine-driver to make up time, they put a premium upon him taking unnecessary risks and hazard. He thought that in every case the fullest investigation should take place, so that defects might be remedied, in order that they might have fewer accidents than they had at the present time. He hoped that even complaints from his side of the House would be investigated.

said that he did not quite agree that it was necessary for hon. members to wait for the papers. The newspapers had given the fullest reports of the proceedings. He thought that the thanks of the House were due to the hon. member for East London for having introduced the subject, what ever the gibes and jeers of the responsible Minister might be, because if these matters were not ventilated now they would be lost sight of. Continuing, he said that many hon. members were of the opinion that one of the members of the Railway Board should have proceeded to the scene of the accident. There were one or two points that came to light in the course of the evidence that should be probed to the bottom. The weight of the train was one of these; and then there was the question of instructions to engine-drivers. Who was responsible for not having issued proper instructions to drivers? That was a question that should have been asked. Referring to the transportation system, Sir George said that it was brought into being without proper inquiry, and that it was not the transportation system that was in force elsewhere. It superimposed non-technical men over technical men, and that was where the trouble lay. Then there was the point as to whether telegrams had been sent to drivers asking them to make up time. The Minister give no reply to that, but said that he would have made inquiry if the statement had come from a better source. He had said that the department came out of the inquiry very well.

The chairman of the Commission said so.

said that the department did not come out of the affair in so satisfactory a manner. Then the Minister said he was going to take steps to stop excessive driving. That might he the official answer. But was not a premium being put on excessive driving? He had never heard anywhere else of travellers giving directions to engine-drivers.

They give tips.

If so it must be a badly administered Railway Department. I suppose that is some new sphere under the transportation system. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the system on the late C.S.A.R. lines put an absolute premium on excessive driving. If a man did not get his train at its destination in as short a space of time as possible, it was ten chances to one he was paid overtime. Continuing, he was not an alarmist, and he did not want to paint the worst side of things, but there was unrest among the men in the North, and the Minister would be well advised to look into the matter without delay.

said he thought they would agree that when people were going about holiday-making in great numbers the railways were apt to become disorganised. He would suggest to the Railway Department that before holidays they should endeavour to see that that disorganisation was reduced to a minimum by every possible preparation. There was just one other point, and that was the necessity for the department attending to the curves and gradients of the lines. He thought that this particular line had not received the attention it should have got. At all events, he thought that some efforts should be made in this direction. Proceeding, the hon. member said he hoped that the unfortunate engine driver, who was said to be one of the best of the drivers, and who felt the consequences of the accident very keenly, would not suffer in status on account of the accident.

replying on the debate, said he was glad that the discussion had served the useful purpose of getting from the Minister three admissions. The first was that he would not condone the sending of telegrams to drivers telling them they must make up time; the second was that the Minister had admitted the necessity for giving wider powers to these Commissions, and the third was that the Minister had admitted that he was wrong the other day when he made the statement that the papers were sub judice. Colonel Crewe added that he might inform the hon. member for Queenstown (Sir Bisset Berry) that though the engine-driver had suffered seriously in a physical way, he had not suffered any loss of status. The hon. member disclaimed the suggestion that he had cast any aspersions on the services of the railway officials.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the second reading. He said the Bill was intended to give effect to part of an agreement arrived at between the South African College and the Diocesan College, to which the Government were also a party. It had been felt that there was great waste in having these two institutions for higher education so close together. There was really only room in the Cape Peninsula for one good strong College— not for two. Proceeding, he said that the agreement really amounted to the absorption of the Diocesan College by the South African College. Provision was made for taking over certain professors from the Diocesan College at the South African College. These professors would be of great value there. Two of the other Diocesan College professors had been pensioned. Another provision in this Bill was that there should be a loan, free of interest, to the Diocesan College for a certain length of time of a sum of £8,250. The Government would not be involved in any extra expense, but there would be a slight saving, and as the years went on, more would be saved. From the educational point of view, it would lead to increased efficiency. One condition of the agreement was that the South African College should take on its Council a representative of the past students of the Diocesan College. The South African College Council was governed by two Statutes: under Act 15 of 1878 they were allowed to have nine members on the Council, and under Act 10 of 1904 an additional member—representing the City Council, in connection with the city’s scholarship. Now, it was proposed to increase the number from 10 to 11, and that was why that Bill was brought forward. That amalgamation of the two Colleges met with the wholehearted support of the Education Department, the Minister of Education, and all friends of higher education in the Cape Province. (Hear, hear.)

said that he wanted some further information before he could promise to vote for the Bill, although his intention was not to oppose it. He wished to know, however, whether adequate security would be given for that £8,000 odd, which would be lent? He agreed that from an educational standpoint the amalgamation of these two Colleges would have a useful result—(hear, hear)—but it seemed from what he had seen of the Bill that financial considerations had predominated, somewhat to the detriment of the educational question. If they looked at clause 8 they would see that the whole Bill depended on clause 9 of the schedule; and that if the Diocesan College could only get a certain sum of money that Bill would remain a dead letter. Who was to get the money if the loan were granted? Neither the Bill nor the schedule said who. No interest was to be paid on the loan for the first three years, and after that it seemed to lie with the College Council. Then, again, he would ask whether the present time was opportune for legislation of that sort, when they heard so much of the proposed National Teaching University, although the proposed amalgamation would be in the interests of higher education. When that question of the University came before Parliament would be the proper time, he thought, for them to consider that question—and they would treat each College on its merits, and in the manner in which they in the House thought best. Now they were asked to lend almost £9,000 to a college that was in financial difficulties, and say that that amalgamation must take place. Unless a good reason were given why they must vote such a sum, he would reserve the (right to himself not to vote for the Bill; and he could not give a vote before the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had given an explanation as to what security they would get for that money.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) had given an account of the history of that Bill, and he must say it was fairly accurate. When the Union Government had taken office in 1910 he had been approached with a view to seeing whether the higher classes of the Diocesan College could not be abolished, and the institution would remain.

It would not be a College.

said that he found that the term “College” was used in rather a loose way; they had the Graaff-Reinet and the Pretoria Colleges, which went only up to Matriculation. If people wanted to get a bit of status they called themselves a “College.” (Laughter.) The amalgamation which would take place was that the intermediate and the B.A. classes of the Diocesan College were transferred to the South African College. Before the amalgamation there had already been a working arrangement between the two Colleges, by which students attending the higher classes of the Diocesan College received lectures at the South African College, and certain professors were exchanged. It had been felt that the time had come to take the higher classes from the Diocesan College to the South African College, and that was done with the consent of the Government because it undoubtedly saved a good deal of money by it. They might not save money immediately by it, but in the near future a good deal of money would be saved annually; there would be a saving when the two gentlemen who at present drew a pension no longer drew their pension, For the first three years, seeing that they (the Diocesan College) were in difficulty, the Government said, seeing that it was going to benefit largely by the transaction, that it would give them £8,000 free of interest for three years, hut that after that they must pay 4 per cent. When the loan came to be arranged with the Treasury it would be for it to see that good security was given; and he thought that the terms on which that money had been given were perfectly safe. He did not think that that question touched the University question at all, because local institutions would continue, and the condition of not having two Colleges going above Matriculation would simplify any University scheme which his hon. friend might contemplate.

thought on the whole Parliament was to be congratulated on the fact that from a financial point of view it would be making a good bargain. He had not the slightest doubt that the amalgamation of the two institutions would be to their mutual benefit, and to the benefit of higher education.

said unless the Minister of Education brought forward a specific resolution the Bill would remain a dead letter.

explained that there were two provisions of a financial character. The transfer to the South African College would be done under the school regulations, and the pensions to be granted to two of the professors would come before the House in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

said he was a little sceptical as to there not being room for two Colleges in the Peninsula, They were not Peninsula institutions, but national institutions. They would be blotting out an institution which had a very considerable part in the national life of the country for the past 50 years. They should see whether it was not possible to preserve the spirit of the Diocesan College in the larger institution in which it was to be merged. The Diocesan College had had many distinguished students, including Lord Salisbury, and it was impossible to see its merging into the South African College without a feeling of regret. The attempt at separation of the Diocesan College from the South African College 50 years ago had failed, and he hoped that experience would be a warning to others in the future not to leave the national institution. He regretted that there had been this splitting un in the past, and he hoped that there would be one national institution in South Africa in the future.

said that, to judge by the impassioned speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage, one would imagine that he was opposing the Bill. His hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) was quite wrong in some of his oratory. When the Diocesan College was started, it was called the Diocesan Collegiate School, and the idea was that it should be a sort of substitute for an English public school for those boys whose parents could not send them to England. At that time the voyage was a long one, and it took him something like seventy days to get to England. The function the Diocesan Collegiate School was started to fill was a very proper one, and it was a great pity that it was ever departed from. Unfortunately, it departed from the idea of being a school, and went in for receiving public aid, it being unable to resist Government grants. The South African College was not a boarding school when this College started. He did hope that the institution would get back to what it was before—a public school. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, he said it was a great reflection on the moneyed men of this country who sent their children there that they did not do something to support this institution. Both the South African College and St. Andrew’s had to look about for money for their support. He thought that the sooner the school rid itself of Government interference the better.

said he did not like the policy adopted towards these small Colleges, for the reason that the best work was done at these institutions. Thanks to the small number of pupils, professors were able to devote more time to each of them, individually. Seeing there was a difference of opinion about this Bill, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the amendment.

said that he hoped his hon. friend was not serious. It had the support of both institutions, and the measure was in the best interests of education, and the interests of economy. He hoped that the amendment would be withdrawn.

said he did not object to the second reading from an educational point of view. (He had not been convinced that he would be doing right in supporting the second reading. It might be in the interests of education that these schools should be joined, but in view of the scheme which the Government had under consideration, he thought that the question should be postponed until that scheme was brought before the country. He criticised the financial aspect of the measure, and said it was upon that point that he disagreed with the proposal for the second reading.

pointed out that nothing in the Bill prevented the Diocesan College from resuming their work at any time. Supposing some capitalist endowed the College, they might make a fresh start, and what would become of the Bill? He supported the previous speaker.

appealed to the mover of the amendment to withdraw, and to allow the Bill to pass the second reading.

in making a similar appeal, said that the Ball did not come into force unless the particular clause in the agreement, about which the hon. member for Caledon was dubious, was fulfilled. The clause was entirely under the control of the House. Everything that the hon. member for Caledon had said had been beside the mark, so far as the second reading was concerned. He thought that it was in the interests of university reform that where colleges were agreeable, there should be amalgamation. He thought that in the cause of higher education the House should vote for the second reading.

The amendment was negatived.

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

The committee stage was set down for Wednesday next.

moved the deletion of the proviso. If the proviso were not deleted, he said, they made provision that any subject which would be referred to in any clause in the Bill before the House could not be altered without legislative authority. The proviso bad only been introduced, he thought, to prevent an enlightened Synod in the future from removing the bar contained in clause 10

said that he did not see why the hon. member should have moved his amendment. Clause 10 did not deprive anyone of his rights.

said that it seemed from what hon. members opposite said, that the Dutch Reformed Church would not admit coloured members in the was not the case: what was objected to was the admittance of coloured members in the churches which Europeans attended. The whole Bill rested on clause 10, because if that were deleted they could as well withdraw the Bill, because they would never have union. They might as well tear the Bill up.

pointed out that clause 11 was under consideration.

said that they had already passed clause 7, which give the Synod the power to interpret the doctrine of the Church. Clause 10 made provision which prevented a coloured member of the Church of the Cape from claiming membership of the Church in the other Provinces. Clause 11 contained a proviso that anything specifically referred to in the Bill could not be altered by the Synod, and if the Synod decided to admit these coloured members it could not do so without earning to Parliament again. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) had used the argument that the Synod had the power to interpret doctrine, and that the Synod should have the power to make alterations; well, he was only employing the hon. member’s argument.

repeated that if the proviso were deleted they might as well tear the Bill up, because that would lead to clause 10 becoming null and void.

said that evidently the hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) had based his argument on misreading clause 10. It said that a coloured member would not be entitled to “claim membership. He could get the right of becoming a member, and an individual church could give him the right.

The Synod cannot do any such thing.

said that he could assure the committee that if that pro viso were deleted the result would be a schism in the Church, and the measure would not be accepted in the other Provinces. If separate congregations agreed to accept coloured members, they could do so, and the Synod could not do anything. He would have to vote against the amendment, because, as a member of the Church, he did not care to have a schism in the Church, and there would certainly be one if that proviso were agreed to.

did not think that this clause was the whole Bill, as the last speaker seemed to want to make out. The point was that they were depriving coloured members of the Church of their rights when they went outside the Province. By removing the proviso they would be giving the Church full power to decide this question. He thought in the future it would be proved that this colour bar would do the Church a great injury. The Church ought to take this power.

said it was merely sought by the amendments to give the Church power to remove this disability. The Church here asked that its hands should he tied. If the Synod wanted to remove the disability, then the Bill, as it stood, made it necessary that they would have to come to Parliament again. It was the plain intention of this Bill to take away the possibility of the Church taking any action in this. The coloured man would not go where he was not wanted; he would go to the Mission Church. But it was not right to ask Parliament to do this.

said that clause 11, and the proviso there, was the ordinary legal provision, which said that an Act of Parliament could only be altered by Parliament—(that no Synod could alter it.

referred to the evidence given before the Select Committee to show that the Church desired that Parliament should not allow the Church power. He appealed to the Church not to tie its hands; the Church would only injure itself.

said that the Dutch Reformed Church would have plenty of scope to make rules and regulations. Continuing, he said that section 12 give the Church the right to admit coloured people. He maintained that there was nothing objectionable in clause 11, and that it should stand.

said he disagreed with the hon. member that coloured persons could be admitted to the Church. He did not think that clause 11 had any reference to clause 10. This clause had to do with the laws and arrangements of the Church. So long as the clause stood, the united Church could not admit coloured persons. The latter part of the clause read that the status of these people should be the same, and be regulated by the status of coloured people in each particular Province. He did not think that the amendment would make any material difference to the measure.

opposed the amendment, because he considered that clause 11 had been drawn up by people who knew what they were about. Every clause was ‘being made the subject of a controversy; he wondered what was behind it all. Generally speaking he was not an advocate of unification movements, because, as a rule, somebody’s interests were sacrificed when there was a pool, but the present clause should be supported as part of a Bill that rested on a secure foundation.

trusted that, after the explanations of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Native Affairs, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would withdraw his amendment. The coloured people were not eager to join the Church as members because of their peculiar characteristics.

said that the hon. member had moved the amendment on the supposition that the proviso would tie the hands of the Church. The Church, however, was used to that, and had asked for the limitation. The Minister of Native Affairs had correctly stated that it would not make the slightest difference to the practical effect of the clause if they did delete the proviso. Whenever the Church wanted amended legislation they would surely come to Parliament, and he could not accept the amendment.

said that if they wanted the provision, then let them have it. It did not matter whether it was in or out.

moved in line 49, after “Act,” to insert “except with regard to the provisions of section 10 of this Act.” He said that if the Synod would reserve to itself the right to alter clause 10 then there would be nothing more to say. He understood the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Burton) to say the other evening that if the Provincial Synods altered the law in their Provinces the coloured members in the Cape could claim membership in these Provinces.

There was something more. It would be open under this clause to each individual congregation to do that. He did not think the amendment of the hon. member was in order. Clause 11 only dealt with domestic matters, not fundamental.

said that what was wanted was for the Synod to take power to make alterations if (required.

said he would not think of allowing any Church, let alone the Dutch Reformed Church, the right to alter an Act of Parliament. That proviso was put in for the information of laymen. If it was taken out it would not give members opposite what they Wanted.

said he would withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Queens Town.

said that the proviso had been inserted for the benefit of those-members of the Synod who were not lawyers, because they might attempt to alter the law, which would probably lead to litigation. The proviso was intended to prevent that.

Sir B. Berry’s amendment was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 12,

moved to add at the end of sub-section (c) “as may have been, or hereafter may be provided by the Union Parliament from time to time.

In reply to Mr. T. L. SCHREINER (Tembuland),

said that as far as he knew there were only two ministers who were receiving grants from the Treasury. On their death there would be no further payments.

What is the position in the Orange Free State?

said the House ought to have information as to all the grants that were made to the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa.

said that whatever moneys were paid out to any Church had to be voted annually by Parliament.

said that if statutory provision were made, it would not require a vote by Parliament. Were these moneys voted in the other colonies year by year?

said that in the other colonies the moneys were voted year by year.

withdrew his amendment.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 4, standing over, was reverted to.

said that, after consulting legal authorities, he had decided to accept the amendment which had been moved, viz., to the effect that Ordina no No. 16 of 1845 (Cape) should be included in the laws to be repealed.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Wednesday next.

said that the Department of Railways and Harbours were excluded from the operations of the Bill. He would like to know the reason. It appeared to him that there was as much necessity for a law of this sort on the railways as in the case of private works.

said that serious accidents had happened in railway works. He referred in particular to the boiler explosion at Cape Town a couple of years ago. That, he thought, showed the necessity for inspection by independent people of Government machinery.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he did not see why Government machinery should be exempt from inspection, and moved an amendment to delete all the words after “power” to “Harbours.”

agreed with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips), and said that he saw no reason why the Department of Railways and Harbours should be exempt.

said there was no ‘ intention to exempt Government departments, but it was a ticklish thing to ask one Government department to inspect another. He had no objection to the amendment, but would move that the words “such machinery where it is” be deleted, and that the word “locomotives” be inserted.

hoped the hon. member for Yeoville would not accept the amendment.

said that the Minister of Mines objected to the discussion, but he wished to remind him that it was entirely due to the manner in which he had worded the clause. He considered that the best way to deal with the inspection of all machinery was to appoint competent inspectors. Government machinery, to his mind, should be subject to inspection as well as anybody else’s machinery, Mr. H. W. SAMPSON (Commissioner-street) said that he would be satisfied if the Minister of Mines would give the assurance that when a Railway Bill was introduced stringent regulations would be framed to deal with railway works and machinery. He considered that a Railway Bill was the proper place to deal with railway workshops and machinery.

In reply to Sir D. HUNTER (Durban, Central),

said that he could give no undertaking on behalf of the Minister of Railways for the inspection of railway machinery, but the Government would have its own system of inspection.

said that there was no system of inspection in the Government service, because most of the accidents which had happened had happened in Government works. The matter of locomotive boilers was, of course, a different one, and he had never heard of a locomotive boiler exploding.

said that the Natal Act made provision for the inspection of Government boilers; and it was now intended to repeal that Act.

said that as he read the Bill it give the Government power over all machinery; and he thought that power would be too wide, as all machinery was not defined. He thought the scope of the Bill was too wide.

said that if the Railway Department were going to have their own inspectors it would be better that the harbours and railways were excluded from that Bill.

was of opinion that that Bill was a Factory Act brought in by a side wind, because it seemed to deal with every kind of machinery. The thing was tremendously wide, and it was obvious that the Government intended to take power into their hands by that Bill to deal with all kinds of machinery. He thought something should be moved to limit the scope of that Bill.

said that the scope of the Bill seemed to foe much wider than they were led to expect from the second reading. It would mean that any place where there was some machinery would be defined as a “works,” and would come under that measure. He thought that newspaper works would come under the definition of works; and if no work was allowed on Sundays before twelve midnight, no Monday paper would come out, and there might be a good deal of disorganisation. The same would be the case in bakeries. The Bill was not going to apply only to mines, but to every place where machinery was employed.

said that under the Bill no work would be allowed in bakeries on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas Day. (Ironical cheers.) There were other trades where the measure would cause disorganisation; not only bakeries and printing works, but many other trades. He hoped that the matter would be seen to at once, before they went any further.

said any law might be made ridiculous by pointing to isolated cases where hardships could be inflicted. But they could not look at isolated cases, and no doubt hard cases would be dealt with on their merits. All machinery used for Industrial purposes would fall under the Bill. With regard to newspapers, their case might be met by an amendment, so that some latitude might be allowed.

thought Government should take power to exclude certain machinery in re the regulations. (Cries of “No.”)

withdrew his amendment in favour of that of General Smuts.

said hon. members, now that they found that the Bill applied to all machinery, were very much alive to the inconvenience that might be caused under it.

agreed with the clause as it stood.

thought the machinery of the harbours and railways should be excluded from the Bill. The railways should have their machinery under independent supervision, and inspection, and he thought the proper place to provide for that was in the Railway Regulations Bill.

said that the Transvaal Act of 1898 contained a similar clause. The Railway should have inspectors of its own for its many locomotives.

hoped the Minister would withdraw his amendment. Unless he did so, he would meet difficulties all through the Bill in having to allow clauses to stand over to make them in harmony with the Bill.

said the tendency was to make the railways a separate thing in the State He thought the principle was a wrong one. The more they brought the railways into the ordinary business of the State, the better it would be. To his mind, there was no reason at all why the inspectors of the mining machinery should not also inspect the railway machinery. He could understand locomotives being exempted, because they were being inspected, pretty well daily.

said that if the Bill went through it would affect all sorts of industries in all sorts of ways. Surely it was never intended that a man driving a motor to separate his milk should come under this Bill. He moved that the clause be altered so as to confine it to mining machinery, which was the original intention.

said that as the owner of a small factory, he was perfectly prepared to have the machinery inspected. If there was to be an inspection of machinery at all there should surely be an inspection of all machinery throughout the country. He thought the amendment of the Minister was a sound one.

suggested it would be well to exempt from their definition of machinery motorcars and motor bicycles. If they were going to have these inspected, it was going to cost a pretty sum.

said that the powers given in the Bill would be reasonably exercised. They were not, of course, going to inspect a man’s motor cycle every seven days. To exempt any class of machinery from, this Bill would be a mistake.

said that if the Minister contemplated the inspection of all machinery it was going to cost an enormous sum.

said that, as a matter of fact, the railway machinery was now inspected. The only question was by what staff it should be done. As regarded the inspection of motor-cars, it would be an excellent thing if the inspectors of machinery could contrive to prevent some of the vehicles from sending those noxious fumes into the air, which was simply due to the use of too much oil in the cylinder.

said he agreed with what had been said by his hon. friend. They were going to have a perfect army of inspectors; jobs found for all hands. (Laughter.) Everything was in the hands of the Minister, and whenever he wanted he could tighten up the springs, and perhaps inspect a motor bicycle now and then. (Laughter.) His hon. friend belonged to the rich class, and had a right to speak. He (the speaker) was a humble person, and he viewed these measures with the utmost alarm. He had been looking through the Estimates, and they would be as astonished as he had been at the number of inspectors they would find there.

said that he was in favour of the Bill brought before the House. He thought the terms of the Bill were best

appealed to the Minister to introduce a Bill dealing with inspection of boilers.

supported what he said was a very sensible suggestion by the hon. member for Durban. He went on to refer to boilers on farms in outlying districts in charge of unscientific men. He thought that the subject of boilers would furnish material for another Bill.

said that the Bill proposed that all machinery on farms or otherwise should be inspected. His hon. friend wanted another army of inspectors to carry out the provisions of the second Bill.

said that his hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin) had forgotten the last part of the clause, and that was the portion to which they took exception Did he know how far the inspector business had got already?

pointed out that in their way single boilers did as much damage as larger boilers.

said that the Minister could apply the measure at his own free will; the Minister could do what he jolly well liked. (Laughter.)

said he did not apprehend the serious financial aspect as pointed out by his hon. friend (Mr. Merriman), because they bad at present all the inspectors they would require.

You are young yet. (Laughter.) He thought hon: members would trust the Minister to carry out the Bill with commonsense, and not with the object of causing inconvenience to those dealing with ma chinery.

said that, an Act almost identical to the present Bill had been in operation for many years in one part of South Africa. It had worked satisfactorily. They must have power, but not for one industry only. The Bill dealt with all industrial machinery, and he wished to assure hon. members that this was no novel departure.

hoped the clause would be passed as it stood.

said he was sorry that the Minister could not see his way to make the railways and harbours liable to all the pains and penalties under the Bill. He agreed with the Minister, however, in all other respects.

moved a further amendment to exclude from the definition of “machinery,” “-agricultural machinery for irrigation, threshing, and milling purposes, and all other machinery not being used for mines, factories, and industrial purposes.” He said that as the Bill stood at present, “machinery” would include agricultural machinery. There had been a great number of machines in operation along the Gamtoos River for years, and they had never been inspected.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Rademeyer) was really raising a nightmare to frighten himself. In the Transvaal all boilers had to be inspected before they were used; they also had to be inspected periodically.

thought it would be to the interests of the farmers themselves that their machinery should be inspected. He moved the deletion of all words after “locomotive,” in line 11. The sub-section would then read:

“ Machinery should mean and include stationary and portable boilers, steam apparatus, steam and other engines, including locomotives.”

supported the clause as printed, and said they should not debate the matter endlessly.

said boilers in Natal were efficients inspected by only two men.

opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Humansdorp. Farmers, he said would willingly submit to the same law that affected other people

said that the inspection of agricultural machinery was not merely superfluous, put practically impossible. It took up too much time to go from farm to farm, and it would only have the effect of annoying the farmers. (Laughter.) If an engine was condemned, what would become of the owner? Would the Government compensate him? Why were they placing burdens on the farmer? He insisted on the amendment.

said he could not agree with the hon. member. There were more accidents among unprotected than among protected machinery. He thought the clause was a very good one. The same law had been in operation for the past 20 years in the Transvaal, and had been found very good.

said that the inspectors knew their business; hence the hon. member for Fort Beaufort’s amendment was uncalled for. He supported the clause as printed. There were two responsible Ministers, and they should not mix up the general inspection with the inspection of railways and harbours, which would lead to confusion without economy.

Mr. Rademeyer’s amendment was negatived.

withdrew his amendment in favour of Sir Thomas Smartt’s.

The amendment by the Minister of Mines was agreed to.

Sir Thomas Smartt’s amendment, in accordance with the Chairman’s ruling, dropped.

In reply to Mr. J. G. MAYDON (Durban, Greyville).

said that clay was a mineral, and excavations for the purpose of getting out clay were mines which came under the scope of that definition; but he did not think that the hon. member need have any fear of troublesome restrictions under that measure.

asked whether the provision in the Bill with reference to digging “any substance” would deal with the digging of potatoes. (Laughter.)

asked whether the same set of regulations would apply to all descriptions of mines.

answered in the negative.

said there were works carried on a Sunday for public convenience, such as electric lighting, bakeries, cold storages, and so on. Then there was the question of newspaper offices. The present Minister might not apply the Act to these occupations, but another Minister might follow him who would take a different standpoint. It would be far better to exclude from this Bill any reference to certain industries, which would be treated far better under a Factory Act.

said he would meet his hon. friend when they got to clause 6.

asked if the definition of Sunday differed from other statutes.

said he did not think so.

On the definition “works,”

moved, in line 39, the insertion of the word “and” and after “sawmills” to omit “and any places where machinery is erected or used.”

said he thought his hon. friend was trying to make the measure ridiculous.

said he did not oppose inspection, but regulation. Surely his hon. friend did not mean to send inspectors to outlying districts, and to deal with a small amount of machinery by similar regulations to those governing larger plants?

thought that these words should be left in the Bill. He thought that discretion would be exercised.

said the pity about the Bill was that too many things had been mixed up in it. He thought the Minister Should consider the very far-reaching effects of this Bill.

said that if hon. members confined their remarks to the subject under debate, much time would be saved. (Cheers.)

supported the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thos. Smartt).

said that very often the inspection of machinery was not sufficient. The machinery might be in perfect order, but power should be given to inspectors to make regulations in order to protect the machinery and the public. The provision was necessary, and when they came to the other clauses, they could deal with the questions of hours of labour and Sunday labour.

said that he was quite prepared to withdraw his amendment if the Minister promised that there would be exemptions to the definition. At present, he had a genuine fear that if they passed the definition as it stood, it would be possible to make regulations for the working of machinery on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day, and a great many people in this country, who watered their stock on those days, might be prevented from doing so.

said he hoped they would not exclude machinery simply (because it was situated on a farm and happened to be small. He considered it would be illogical to inspect only certain machinery. He moved to omit “works and machinery” in line 40.

moved that the clause stand down, in view of its great importance. If the principle was (allowed, they would have the principle of eight-hours’ day applied to every industry in the country.

No, it is not so. The matter has been very carefully considered, and I do not think any case has been made out for postponement.

said the definition as it stood meant that the Mining Department could not inspect the ordinary works and machinery of the Railway Department, but it could inspect the locomotives.

No.

“Works” here means a works—(laughter)—a locality where something is situated, something localised. You don’t call a locomotive engine a works. (Laughter.)

said the definition would apply to lifts or newspapers.

did not see why the clause should stand over; he was perfectly satisfied with the definition. In what workshop did more dangerous machinery exist than in newspaper works? Almost nine out of every ten boys in a printing office lost a finger.

said he was in favour of the clause standing over. It was better that they should know the industries that should apply.

said the whole difficulty lay between regulation of the mining industry and regulation of the factories of the country. Let the Government bring in a Bill to regulate the mining industry, and then let them bring in a Factory Act.

In answer to Mr. C. P. ROBINSON (Durban, Umbilo),

said that when they came to clause 8 they could limit its scope, and he thought that was the proper course to follow.

On the motion that the clause should stand over,

declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division.

Oh, no, no.

withdrew.

moved to omit “and machinery” in line 40.

The amendment by Mr. Alexander was withdrawn.

The amendments by Sir T. W. Smartt were negatived.

The amendment by Mr. Duncan was agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3,

suggested that it should be taken in conjunction with clause 4. It was, he said, of a very wide character.

said that he did not think it necessary to do so. The Government Mining Engineer would have a very wide jurisdiction. He would deal with matters not confined to mines.

said that if it were all vested in the Government Engineer a good deal of his proper functions would suffer. The functions should be accurately defined.

said this was really intended for mines. The mining engineer would not be trained for all these other matters.

said the best technical officer the Government had was the Government Mining Engineer, and he was the proper man to be nominal head.

said it was desirable to have a high official who would have supervision over all the inspectors.

said that what they were trying to do was to put the Transvaal people in charge of the whole Union. He did not think that the provisions would be carried without creating the greatest in convenience. The Bill was not suited to the needs of the country, and was created for conditions that were met with elsewhere.

said that people from other countries would laugh at the arrangements, and would declare that the whole of South Africa was a mining camp. Why should the mines dominate everything? Against this he bad a sentimental objection, and hoped that the name would be changed.

said that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, was right, they should not have gone in for Union. If it was the title of the official concerned that was the rock of offence, it should be changed.

The clause was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on the following day.