from the British Indian Association of the Transvaal, praying that the Immigrants’ Restriction Bill be so amended as to leave no uncertainty as to the rights of educated Asiatics passing the education test, of entering and remaining in the Transvaal and other Provinces without being subjected to the registration laws of the different Provinces.

as chairman of the Select Committee, brought up the report of the committee with amendments.

Consideration of the amendments was set down for Wednesday.

brought up the report of the Select Committee, with amendments.

Consideration of the amendments was set down for Wednesday.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he proposed to bring forward the Railway Budget?

replied that he would inform the hon. member tomorrow.

Estimates of Expenditure, Cape of Good Hope, year ending March 31, 1912.

moved that the House go into committee to consider the following: That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Post Office Bill, to consider the question of empowering the Governor-General to make regulations: (a) Differentiating as regards dock, wharfage, transshipping, or any other like dues at any port or harbour of the Union on goods landed from, shipped in, or transshipped from vessels owned or chartered by persons with whom the Governor-General under sub-section (2) may not contract; and (b) differentiating as regards freight for the transport, over any railway belonging to the Government of the Union, of goods which have been landed or transshipped from, or are to be shipped in, vessels owned or chartered by persons with whom the Governor-General, under sub-section (2), may not contract; and (c) prescribing the returns and other particulars which shall be made or furnished, and the manner in which such returns and particulars shall be made or furnished, by persons landing, transshipping, or shipping goods from or in any vessel or transporting goods upon any railway of the Union; and, if agreed to, that the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

seconded.

said this motion raised several very important questions. It was put in a peculiar form. He wanted to know Mr. Speaker’s ruling whether it was competent for the committee to have power to bring forward a report to-day?

pointed out that what they were dealing with now was the question that the House go into committee on sub-sections (a) to (c).

said they had had a long discussion upon the general principles of the policy put forward by the Government. The original proposals had now been withdrawn in their entirety, and they were asked to have another discussion upon a set of proposals which were entirely different. What he wanted to do was to draw attention to the peculiarity of such a procedure, and therefore he hoped the Government would not press the last part of the motion.

said perhaps the hon. member would remember that he had foreshadowed this clause when he spoke upon the Bill, and had given notice the other night. If the hon. member objected, the result would simply prolong discussion. When the clauses were discussed, he could not see any reason in delaying the report.

moved as an amendment that the clauses be considered that day six months. His grounds for moving that amendment was because these instructions to the committee were wholly out of order. When the second reading of the Bill was taken, certain principles were agreed to, and he found by referring to the authorities that it was not proper to insert novel principles like these. He referred the Hon. Minister to May upon Parliamentary Practice. What they were asked to do was to consolidate the Post Office Bills of the Union, but now the Government were seeking to deal with the whole question of the carriage of goods by ships that came to the country, and to place restrictions upon the people of the country. Surety that was out of order. In fact, it was entirely opposed to section 136 of the Act of Union, because that section set down there should be free trade throughout the Union, but here the Government sought power to penalise people who elected to have their goods carried by certain lines. How were they going to deal with the money obtained in this way from people who were going to deal with the Conference lines? In order to get trade they would say to the merchants they would not allow any undercutting of whatever pet line they sought to create, and were going to surcharge these people so as to equalise matters. If he (Mr. Struben) elected to have his goods carried by the Conference lines, why should he be penalised in a Post Office Bill? This was a most unfair weapon to use, and in fact the method of procedure was illegal, because, although the Government sought to penalise a man they did not accuse him of any statutory offence. In fact, the Government were doing actually the things they were seeking to abolish, namely, the granting of rebates. What was to prevent the Government from saying that a certain corporation making more profit than another should be penalised on the railways by being charged more rates? One of the prime principles of railway management was that the rates charged should be the same for all persons. The hon. and learned member, in conclusion, quoted the, railway clause in the English Act of 1845 to bear that out.

seconded the amendment.

thought that all sections of the community would welcome the motion and the inclusion of that clause, which would improve clause 5. He thought they all regretted that the Government had to fight the Shipping Combine, which had for so long been connected with South Africa, but circumstances demanded it, and the Combine were now hoist with their own petard. Trusts and combines should not be allowed to control what they (the country) ought to control—the harbours and the ports of South Africa. A difference of 2s a ton on mealies meant all the difference between success and the opposite. In the past, the Combine had exploited the disunion which had existed in South Africa, but now there was a different state of affairs, and the Combine must be fought with its own weapons. He trusted that clause 6 would be inserted in the Bill, which would make for the prosperity of South Africa.

thought that the Minister in charge of the Bill should explain sub-section (a). He understood that this meant that the Government did not propose to differentiate between the steamers, but only to differentiate against the goods, that was, against the consignee.

Yes.

Well, I think that is perfectly right; and I think that any differentiation against the steamers would have led the Government into a very complicated position.

The hon. gentleman has stated the position correctly. The differentiation takes place on the quay.

said that the Government now came to the House with a proposal carrying that mad practice to its worst extreme. What the Government now proposed was this: recognising that the Conference lines—if that thing went to its bitter end—would do what every other combine would do, and every business man would do—fight—it said that they were not even going to be allowed to struggle. What the Government now proposed to do was to make it impossible for anyone to use their ships, and then they talked, as an hon. member opposite had done, about the dignity of that position. The Government now came with a pistol to their heads, and said that they would cripple them (the Combine) if they did not agree with what the Government wanted. Most of them were agreed that reforms were necessary, and many of them were agreed that the rebate system was all wrong, but what honest man could agree that that was the right method of fighting the shipping companies? If the House agreed to that, it would be a most reprehensible piece of business.

said that he did not see how the Government could have done otherwise than it did, because in the Post Office Bill it was proposed to give the company a very large subsidy, and that naturally was going to keep the combine together. That was really the position. It was now simply proposed to put it outside the power of the Government to make a contract with such a company. He admitted that that was an extreme step; but the case demanded an extreme step; and how otherwise were they going to break the monopoly down? In fact, this was the only method by which they could break it down. In the Straits Settlements some differentiation like that was also made, and that was the only way in which a matter of that kind could be dealt with. Differentiating was exactly what the companies were doing. They had differentiated against Cape Town the other day. (An HON. MEMBER: Why?) To suit their own ends, because they had been called upon to pay their fair share towards the interest and the upkeep of the Docks. A more daring piece of business, showing the monopoly and power they held, had never been shown. It was about time that that power was broken down. Another case of differentiation on the part of the combine was that of a man who shipped outside the ring having to pay 5 per cent. more than one who did not ship outside the ring. The companies took up the right to dictate to this country, and who were to use these docks: who were to land, and who to ship the goods. The question was whether they, as a country, were going to tolerate that sort of thing? To break that monopoly down they had a perfect right to say what they should charge on goods landed in the Docks into which they (the country) had put their money. If they wanted to break down that monopoly, he did not see what other weapon the Minister had.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town was quite wrong, and knew that he was wrong when he said that the Conference Lines were being subsidised by this or any other country. They were simply being paid for any services which they rendered. He did not think the hon. member had put the case fairly.

interposing: I never used the word “subsidy.”

said that he would like the Minister in charge of the Bill to give them some information as to how he intended these clauses to be worked if they were passed by the House. What did he mean by saying he would differentiate in dock dues on goods? He (Mr. Henderson) did, not know what “dock dues on goods” were. How could he differentiate on goods which were landed for transshipment?

said he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the amendment he had moved. (Hear, hear.) He believed the existing contract expired in September of next year, and if they were going to do anything of a practical character they had got to do it now, and not six months hence. The hon. member for Durban had said that the company were paid for their services to the country. He (Mr. Henderson) said that they were not paid too much for the services they rendered. But, by the showing of the companies themselves, they had been paid considerably too much for the services they had rendered to the public. The company had reduced their charges. They had recognised, by their own action during the past week, that the rates they had been charging for services rendered to South Africa were excessive. He held in his hand a paper showing the rates that had come into force, or were to come into force, on March 10. This paper showed reductions of a substantial character. The hon. member quoted two or three classes of goods, and instanced mineral waters, on which the rates to Mossel Bay were reduced from 15s. to 12s. 6d., Algea Bay from 15s. to 12s. 6d., East London 17s. 6d. to 15s., and Durban 25s. to 17s. 6d. (Hear, hear.) Surely, his hon. friend, representing such an important mercantile community as Durban, owed a debt of gratitude to the Minister for introducing proposals which had already caused such a substantial reduction in the interests of the port which he represented. They ought to use the lever that they had to their hands for the purpose of obtaining the best terms for the people of this country. The Government ought not to hesitate to exercise the instrument they had in the mail contract for the purpose of assisting the agricultural development of the country. They were not getting as fair rates for the development of their industries as other countries were getting. This was legislation of an extreme character; they had a desperate disease, and it required a desperate remedy. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the result of this Bill would be the emancipation of this country from monopoly of any sort whatsoever.

said he had just listened to one of the violent speeches which reminded him of the old days. His hon. friend would very likely find that he had got this country into a most horrible mess by legislation of this kind. He could not conceive anything more calculated to do what they were told about yesterday, and that was to drive capital out of the country. It was shipping to-day, and it might be dry goods to-morrow. He was prepared when the time came to go fully into this matter, and show that those arguments of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort were simply founded on moonshine. (Laughter.) But he did not think that this was the time to do it. He wanted to see the proposals moved, so that they could argue the matter on its merits or demerits. He would like to ask the Postmaster-General whether there had been any communication with the Imperial Government or the Imperial Post Office with regard to these proposals?

The Imperial Post Office has been communicated with in connection with matters in so far as the Post Office is affected.

Have they answered?

Have you any objection to laying the correspondence on the table, because this is a very important matter? I want to see exactly where we stand with the Imperial Government, who are the argest partners, and who pay about 60 or 66 per cent.

said that he agreed with the right von. Gentleman that they need not have half-a-dozen debates on this matter, and that it was superfluous to have a full-dress debate now ana another when they went into committee. The information asked for by his right hon. friend could be placed before them in committee.

said he could not find that the Chamber of Commerce gave him any lead on this object. He thought it would be well if the various Chambers of Commerce representing commerce throughout the country should have an opportunity of considering the proposals. One knew perfectly well that the small trader was totally opposed to the proposals. The big trader, however, wanted to be able to take the matter into his own hands. He thought some time should be allowed so that they could get some guidance from the Chambers of Commerce on this important question.

hoped the hon. member opposite would not press his amendment. He thought they ought to go into committee to consider these matters. He hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would recognise the extraordinary position in which they were placed, and give the information asked for. He asked for the information which the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had asked for. As a matter of fact., he had already asked for the information, but it was not forthcoming. Instead of that the Minister told the House. That he had been writing to the Imperial Government. He (the speaker) dared say he had, but what he wanted to know was what the Imperial Government had been writing to him. (Laughter.) When a grave question was asked the Minister, and he gave anything but a plain answer, he must not be surprised if a great deal of suspicion were created. Another thing he would like to know was whether the Minister was sure of his own proposals, because he introduced proposals which were discussed at great length, then withdrew them, and now introduced a new set of proposals. Were other proposals to be brought forward at a later stage?

said that he, like the hon, member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta), was anxious to have a lead from the commercial men he represented. The two new clauses were most important and before they were actually considered in this House he thought that it was only right and just that the people he represented should have them before them. He quite understood that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), was anxious to see the clauses go through, but there were small people who were going to suffer. He thought that in justice to the small people who were going to suffer—at present they were able to compete with the big men— they should have these clauses put before them, and get their opinions. He was anxious that the people of Durban, especially those connected with shipping, should have an opportunity of discussing them.

said that so far as the Mossel Bay Chamber of Commerce was concerned, it had expressed itself unanimously in favour of the continuance of the rebate system.

Let us have the resolution.

The report appeared in the Cape Town papers one day last week. He read the resolution, and said that although he had no intention of going into the merits of the case, he wished to say that it would be well if consideration of these new clauses were adjourned until the shipping people and others interested had had an opportunity of discussing them.

withdrew his amendment.

then moved a formal amendment, which was agreed to.

I must ask the Hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill whether he proposes to extend the title of the Bill?

Yes.

was understood to say that notice had been given.

It is not on the paper.

The question is, that the House go into committee to consider the Minister’s motion, and, if agreed to, that the House resolve itself into committee, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day

The motion to go into committee was agreed to.

On the second part of the motion, that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day,

asked if it were possible to object?

Does the hon. member object?

Yes.

Well, the motion cannot be put.

moved to omit sub-sections (a) and (b) of the motion.

asked whether it was wise to take this discussion now? They could not have two discussions on it.

said that he wanted a full discussion on the matter. If they adopted the motion, and then went into commitee he did not know where they would stand. He withdrew his amendment.

The resolution was adopted, and reported to the House.

announced that the Chairman would bring up a report tomorrow.

The Bill itself was then considered in committee.

moved, in the paragraph defining railways, in line 15, after “force” to insert “but shall not include the railway lines of the Department of Railways and Harbours”; in line 16, after “body,” to insert “other than the Department of Railways and Harbours”; in line 20 to omit “thirtieth day of June,” and to substitute “thirty-first day of March.”

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 3, administration and control of the department,

thought that this was a good opportunity for the Minister to give the House an outline of the policy with regard to the Post Office. During the Minister’s second reading speech, they had heard a great deal about the shipping combine, but they had heard nothing as to the Post Office.

said it would be more convenient to answer any question for information as to the administration of the Post Office when the Estimates were under consideration.

moved an amendment providing that any regulations made should be laid on the table of the House before coming into operation. He pointed out that there was a serious discrepancy between the Dutch and English copies of the Act. In the Dutch edition there were very important omissions as to the conventions and regulations.

said that the Minister was about to move an amendment in the Dutch copy.

moved that the penalties authorised to be imposed by the Postmaster-General far breaches of instructions be limited to £10. He urged that it was not proper to give the Minister or officials unrestricted power to impose penalties.

said that this was copied from the old Cape Act, and the law was the same in the Transvaal and Natal, and in Australia.

said he did not think it was a wise procedure to allow the Postmaster-General to inflict penalties without these being specified, as also the offences. He hoped his hon. friend would take the trouble to read the Gape Act.

What section?

Section 2. I will move an amendment to add the words “not exceeding £10 for each offence.”

well l, it depends on the offence.

pointed out that these penalties were imposed merely for disciplinary purposes.

said he quite agreed that they should not give the Postmaster-General power to impose penalties without specifying the crimes for which they were to be imposed.

said he had no objection to accepting the amendment of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman), although the amount of £10 was high, and he did not think the Postmaster-General would impose such a penalty.

said in the railway to-day they had exactly the same power under the old Cape Act, and he proposed to include it in the new Act.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was agreed to.

moved amendments in the Dutch version.

said that it made no difference in the world. (Laughter.) He thought that the Minister in charge of the Bill could safely take the amendment.

said that the fault was that the Dutch was too good; most of them did not understand it. (Laughter.)

said that he did not think that all these amendments were necessary.

said that if these amendments were not made, they would be made in another place. That was what had happened already.

The amendment moved by Mr. Struben was negatived.

On clause 4, Postmaster-General to prescribe fees, etc., for services rendered,

moved to omit the first four lines, and to substitute the following: “The Postmaster-General shall prescribe, and may from time to time alter the fees, rates, or charges to be demanded or received for the conveyance of postal articles and for the transmission, conveyance, or delivery of telegrams, and for any other service rendered by the Department, and may cause to be made and sold postage stamps, envelopes, cards, wrappers, and other articles, embossed or impressed with such amounts of postage as he may deem fit; provided that ”

said that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would admit that clause 4 was not in accordance with Cape lines, because in the Cape Act it had clearly been laid down what charges should be made for services of that kind rendered by the Department; and the House was the proper tribunal to fix these charges. With the exception of sub-section (b) the Postmaster-General had the right at any time to make any charge he liked, without any notice to the House, by putting a notice in the “Gazette.” He did not think it was proper, and they did not know, when the House rose, which charge the Postmaster-General would make for the registration of letters, parcels post, within the Union, and so forth. He did not think that was satisfactory, and he put it to the Minister whether it would not be infinitely more satisfactory to lay down these charges once and for all in the schedule. He thought that the public ought to know what these charges were, and that they should only be altered by Parliament.

said that he did not agree with the hon. member. If the principle were accepted by the committee of fixing the charges in question, the committee would also have to adopt the same principle of laying down a tariff of railway fares and rates. He thought it was customary all over the world to give elastic powers to these executive officers. He thought it would be a hopeless thing to ask the Postmaster General to have to come to the House every time he wanted to alter the tariff of charges of telephones and postal matters. These charges were often regulated by Inter-State Conventions, and it would be impossible, if the proposal of the hon. member were agreed to, to come to any definite resolution unless some elasticity were given like that.

said that they at the Cape had been at such Conventions since 1882, and had managed to get along some way or other. The case of the Railway Department was not analogous to the Post Office. Surely they ought to know once and for all what the charges for postal matters were; and that they should not be altered at the whim of the Minister.

said that he had endeavoured to follow in this Bill Cape lines as far as possible, and wherever there was a difference he had given the public the benefit of it. It was unnecessary to make fixed charges. The rates were fixed by regulation in all countries from time to time, and could not be altered, except with the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council, and then any alteration must be published.

said it seemed to him that a constitutional point was involved, because the Postmaster-General was given power to impose taxation.

I think the hon. member is quite wrong. It is not a tax; it is a charge for services rendered. (Hear, hear.) The Postmaster-General does not fix it without the consent of the Governor General-in-Council.

said he would support the clause as it stood.

said that, as the clause stood, they might levy preferential rates which might cause gross injustice to certain localities certain individuals, or concerns. It had been suggested that they should trust the Government. He did not trust any Government—not a bit further than he could see them (Laughter.) If the clause went through they ought to have some protection that the rate for letters should not be raised to more than one penny. It at present said that the rate should be “not less than one penny.”

said he did not think they ought to give the Government this power of discretion. It was a bad thing to put in the hands of any Government the power to lower or raise postal rates.

said he was surprised that his hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) had not supported him in his contention that these rates should be laid down once and for all. He hoped the Minister would agree to an alteration of sub-section (a), by giving the public ample notice in the “Gazette” of any proposed change, say, three months.

intimated that he could not accept any such alteration, and pointed out that the clause followed the law in the United Kingdom If they fixed anything by schedule, they had to get the schedule repealed before they could alter it. He thought it was perfectly correct that the Governor-General-in Council should have discretion, in this matter.

could not understand why the Minister should propose to fix a minimum and not a maximum rate.

said he was confident that any change which was made would be in the direction of lowering rather than raising the rates.

moved to add at the end of the clause a proviso directing that no increase of the fees, rates, or charges should be enforced until six weeks after the first publication in the “Gazette.”

said it was not clear to him whether the present 1/2d. rates for unclosed circulars were to continue. There was no definition of the word “letter” in the Bill, and they had no security that this rate would be continued when the Bill became law.

said that the object was to provide a differential postal rate for diamonds.

said that his point was that under this clause circulars would in future have to bear a penny stamp.

said the intention was not to raise the rates. The general tendency throughout the world was to lower them.

said that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stated that he had never known of the rates having been raised in the Cape. Of course not, because that was a matter fixed by schedule.

complained that although there had been Union for ten months there was no postal guide. He pointed out the differential rates in the different Provinces. For instance, in the Transvaal recently, they made a reduction on newspapers to a non-paying rate. The rate was 1/4d. per newspaper, irrespective of weight. It had not been extended to the Cape Province. If reductions were made, they should see that one section of the community did not get an advantage over another.

said he hoped the Minister would stick to the clause as printed.

Will the Minister kindly give us the meaning of a “letter”? It has been asked for by the hon. member for Jeppe three times, and he has not yet got an answer.

Letter is not defined in any Act.

Well, then, what about having a penny stamp?

said that a letter was a communication which was not open to inspection.

So that what is not open to inspection is a letter?

Yes.

Well, that is something I never knew. (Laughter.)

Will the Minister state in which Act that definition is laid down, because it is not in this Act we are now considering?

repeated that a letter was not defined in any Act.

asked the Minister whether he had any intention of arranging that all telegraph offices should be open for one hour on Sundays? It was an absolute necessity.

said that he was not prepared to give the hon. member any assurance, but he would look into the question, which was a very big one.

moved to delete the word “penny” for the insertion of “halfpenny.”

moved the following addition to sub-section (a), “such fees, rates, and charges shall, however, not exceed those prescribed by the first schedule to the Cape Colony Act of 1892.”

said that he had got the schedule of the Cape Act, and saw that only postcards, newspapers, book packets, and sample packets were carried for a halfpenny. If a circular was not one of these things, and he had never heard that it was, and if it were carried for a halfpenny, then there was something irregular.

said that the Department must be given some discretion.

said that he wished to give the power to the Minister to make the fee less than a penny.

said that pressure was always being brought to bear on the Department to take closed letters at 1/2d. for delivery in the same town in which they were posted. That was wrong. The cost of transport was trifling; the real expense to the Post Office was in the collection and delivery, and a letter posted and delivered in Cape Town cost practically the same to the Department as a letter posted in Cape Town and delivered in the Paarl.

contended it would be a great mistake to place arbitrary powers in the hands of the Post Office Department to increase the tariff, so as to meet a deficiency. In other countries the tariff was fixed. They should fix a maximum rate.

said the hon. member’s (Mr. Nathan’s) amendment would fix the same tariff as was provided for in an Act which was to be repealed by this Act. The result would be there would be no tariff at all. (Laughter.)

The amendment moved by Sir D. P. de V. Graaff was agreed to.

Mr. Currey’s, Mr. Nathan’s and Mr. Henderson’s amendments were negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved that clause 5, relating to contracts, the Shipping Combine, etc., stand Over.

Agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 were verbally amended.

On clause 15, what is a newspaper and supplement to newspapers,

moved: To add at the end: “Notwithstanding anything in this section, all literary publications printed and published in the Union shall, when posted for transmission to any place within the Union be considered to be newspapers within the meaning of this section.”

said he could not accept the amendment.

said the amendment would give a preference to publications printed in the Union.

supported the amendment.

said a monthly publication was carried at newspaper rates.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 19 was verbally amended.

On clause 22, redirection and interception of postal articles,

moved to insert, in line 15, after “article”: “Provided further, that any parcel arrested or intercepted in transit through the post for delivery to the sender or addressee at the office at which such stoppage is effected shall be liable to such fee as may be prescribed in that behalf.” The mover explained that the amendment was necessary in order to bring the clause into conformity with the present postal conditions.

pointed out that the idea of the clause was that a parcel could be stopped at the instance of the sender, but a small fee would be charged.

moved as an amendment to that of the Minister to omit the words “other than a parcel.” He thought the time had come when in the interests of the public parcels should be considered in the same light as letters or other postal matter.

How often would it happen that a parcel was addressed Cape Town when it was meant for Johannesburg? I do not think it is worth while burdening the Act with such an amendment.

If there are very few of these cases the Postal Department would not be put to much extra trouble. I merely mentioned the question as a matter of principle.

said he desired information. When a letter was posted it was no longer the property of the sender, but by this clause apparenly the sender had still control over postal matter. Why should there be any differentiation?

withdrew his amendment.

Sir David Graaff’s motion was agreed to.

On clause 24, articles which are to be sent by postmasters to Returned Letter Office for disposal,

moved to add at the end of the clause the words “or delivered to him if applied for.” This amendment, he said, would facilitate business a great deal, and would save the applicant waiting until the Post Office chose to send the letter back.

accepted the amendment, which was adopted.

Clause 27 was verbally amended.

On clause 28, unclaimed articles elf value and art idles posted in contravention of this Act,

moved to omit the reservation in brackets in the clause, viz.: “Unless, any such postal article or the contents thereof have, in his opinion, been posted in contravention of this Act, or with intent to evade payment of the postage properly chargeable thereon.”

said the words as they stood in the clause were identical with the present South Africa Act, and they were no innovation.

said that the hon. member would see that it was only done in cases of attempted fraud.

said that if the parcel were confiscated, and the man proceeded against, he would be twice punished. Why Could a man not be given notice, so that he could redeem the article and pay the required charges?

said that he had never known of a case when an understamped parcel had been confiscated.

said that a man might have a good reason to give, and he should have the opportunity of being heard. Now he was given no opportunity.

There was some further discussion, in which Mr. MADELEY and Mr. JAGGER joined.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who seems to be in charge of the Bill—(laughter)—whether he gives the Postmaster-General instructions on the Bill? (Laughter.)

The amendment was negatived, and clause 28 agreed to.

On clause 30, delay in transmission, return to sender, or delivery to other than addressee of article prohibited,

asked the Minister whether he was not conferring upon the sender a power which he should not have?

said that a letter should not be interfered with once it had been posted; but in the case of a parcel it was different, because parcels were infinitely more easily traced, and it was possible a parcel might be wrongly addressed. A parcel would not be “arrested” unless there was a very good reason for it.

said that he objected to the sender “arresting” the parcel. He wanted the Minister to provide that this should not take place without the consent of the addressee.

drew a distinction between letters and parcels. He pointed out that there were certain legal results in one case, but not in the other.

urged that powers should be given to some lower official than the Postmaster-General to arrest parcels, for the protection of traders in other places than Cape Town.

said that the provision had worked well in the past.

said that under clause 3 the Postmaster-General could delegate his powers to the subordinate postmasters.

He can, but he won’t.

defended the powers which the Postmaster-General had to arrest letters.

said he could not see any reason for making a distinction between a letter and a parcel.

urged that no distinction should be made.

said that there was an essential difference between a letter and a parcel. A letter had no intrinsic value, but with a parcel it was quite different. Mr. Jagger explained the procedure which was adopted for the arrest of a parcel.

said he hoped the Minister would make some provision for the power to arrest a parcel to be delegated.

said that the present system had worked satisfactorily.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 34, articles addressed to persons conducting a lottery or dealing in indecent or obscene matter,

moved to insert after the word “addressed,” the words “by or.” His object was, he said, that the Postmaster-General should be able to detain or delay all postal articles addressed by any person conducting a lottery or dealing in indecent matter to any person in the Union.

hoped that the hon. member had considered the effect of his amendment. If it were agreed to, it would place enormous power, in the hands of the Postmaster-General.

said the power was given in clause 30.

said that a private letter should be regarded as sacred.

said that, while anxious to stop lotteries and indecent matter, he thought the amendment, if carried, would give power to the Postmaster-General to destroy the secrecy of private letters.

said that he was not prepared to accept the amendment.

withdrew his motion.

On clause 35. notice of departure of vessels,

moved to insert the words “or Postmaster at the port of departure,” after the word “Postmaster-General,” in line 37.

said he was prepared to accept the amendment.

said that the words “or agents,” in line 1, did not suit the present shipping requirements at all. He was proceeding, when

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

thought the words “or person in charge of any vessel” should be substituted for the words “or agent.” They would then be following the Cape Act. He was informed that the agent often really had no say in the movements of the vessel; the responsible person was the master, or the person acting as master. The agent was simply the business representative on shore. The word “agent” could be left out all through the section. The hon. member also pointed out that there was no penalty, as in the English Act, in the case of a person opening a sealed mail bag or taking out a mail bag entrusted to him for conveyance.

said that often the agents had charge of the vessels. To leave the agents responsible would give additional security to the Post Office Department. The other matter was covered by clause 96.

said that clause 96 referred to an officer of the department.

preferred the term “person in charge.” There were agents of vessels who had not ‘the power to stop vessels or to give the required notice. There was no difficulty in the case of big vessels at the large ports, but in other instances they would be making agents responsible who were powerless.

said that instances had occurred where it was desired to detain vessels for a couple of hours, and the captain could not be found. It would strengthen the hands of the department if they could look to the agent.

said the point was that here they provided for fining an agent £100 when he might be quite powerless to comply with the requirements of the Act.

suggested the words “duly authorised” should be inserted before “agent.”

moved to add to the proviso, “and that this law shall not apply to vessels clearing from one port of the Union to another.” He pointed out that vessels called at places, like Port Elizabeth, and only stayed a couple of hours. It would be ridiculous to require such vessels to give six hours’ notice.

said that a ship would ordinarily have to get pratique before it could be allowed to leave a port, so that no inconvenience was caused by its having to get the authority of the Postmaster.

moved to delete “six hours” for the purpose of inserting “three hours,” as the period of notice required to be given of the departure of a vessel sailing for a port within the Union.

accepted this amendment, which was agreed to.

An amendment to substitute “eight” and “six,” in place of “nine” and “five,” moved by Mr. Jagger, was agreed to.

Mr. Currey’s amendment, to insert after “Postmaster-General,” “or the Postmaster at the port of departure,” in regard to the authority to allow a shorter notice, was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

moved: That the following be a new clause, to follow clause 35, viz.: “36. If a master of a vessel (a) opens a sealed mail bag with which he is entrusted for conveyance; or (b) takes out of a mail bag with which he is entrusted for conveyance any postal packet or other thing, he shall forfeit two hundred pounds.”

He afterwards withdrew it.

On clause 36, masters of vessels to convey mails tendered,

moved to omit “one,” and to substitute “five,” in order to make the penalty for a breach of the section £500.

thought the penalty for a slight delay of mails was very stupendous. He thought the penalty should fit the crime.

said it would depend on the circumstances of the case.

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to.

Clauses 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, and 51 were verbally amended.

On clause 52,

moved that the deposits made in one year should not exceed £100, and the total amount of deposits shall not exceed £600.

thought that the amount of the deposits should not be restricted too much.

pointed out that a man who was in receipt of £20 or £30 per month, might wish to save £15. They should encourage him to save as much as possible.

thought £100 a year was quite sufficient, because a man who wanted to save more than that could make different arrangements.

hoped the Minister would accept the yearly limit of £200, then, when the £600 limit was reached, they could call upon the depositor to make other arrangements.

desired to know if they had received any communication from the Associated Bankers on the subject.

said they had made no objection to the amendment that had been moved, and so he believed they were satisfied.

said if the Minister could not accept the £200 a year they might at least compromise at £150.

pointed out that as soon as a depositor had saved £100 he could convert it into a Savings Bank certificate.

said the discussion had related so far to men depositors who were able to save £100 a year, but there was the case of women depositors who only save £100 in several years.

thought it was not desirable that Post Office Savings Banks should compete with ordinary banks. These people were able to have £1,600 in the Savings Bank—£1,000 in certificates and £600 on ordinary deposit.

said he agreed that £1,600 was sufficient limit altogether, but the Minister had originally intended that the limit for one year should be £100. He would like to know if any representation had been made to him upon the matter.

Yes; very strong representations.

Outside the Government?

Yes; outside the Government as well.

said these savings banks were simply established to encourage thrift among the poorer classes. When a man saved more than £100 a year he was really doing very well, and could make other arrangements. Banks, he believed, would give 31/2 percent. per annum on a six months deposit. It was not right for the Government to go and interfere with the other banks of the country. He hoped that the Minister would stick to his clause.

Does this class of man go to a bank? He never sees a bank.

Oh!

said that he agreed with Sir Edgar Walton. Why place obstacles in the way of thrift?

hoped that the amount which could be invested in the Savings Bank would be unlimited. Why not encourage thrift, and encourage them to put their money in? It was the cheapest way for the Government of obtaining money.

said that the limit of £1,000 had been in vogue in the Cape for 20 years, and had worked very well. The Government had £800,000 in Savings Bank certificates; and women also largely went in for this form of investment.

said that they did not limit a man to investing £100; he was not allowed to invest more than £100 per year in the Savings Bank, but he could invest more if he liked in Savings Bank certificates.

asked whether it would not be better for his hon. friend when he came to clause 72 to reduce the amount which might be invested in Savings Bank certificates, or do away with them altogether. He wanted to assist the man who did not have any capital, and was trying to lay some by.

said that the Savings Bank was the resort of many who tried to put up a fund for the education of their children. If they raised more than £100 they would have to go to another bank, and go through the same procedure, and forfeit the interest if they withdrew any amount. He asked whether the Government could not give depositors a chance of putting in a larger amount than was now allowed, and even cut out the certificates altogether?

said that he was perfectly willing to make a compromise, and make an increase in the amount which would be allowed to be deposited in one year, provided a reduction was made in the other clause. He would be perfectly satisfied if his hon. friend (Sir David Graaff) would agree to an amount of £1,000 altogether being allowed to be deposited; £500 and five certificates of £100. (Hear, hear.)

In reply to Sir G. FARRAR (Georgetown),

said that all he had in mind was that nobody should be allowed to have more than £1,000 deposited on the two accounts. The present proposal was to make it £1,600.

said that if that proposition were taken, it was going to discourage thrift.

said that these Savings Bank certificates were the most popular form of investment they had, for while the banks gave 3 per cent., they had been giving 31/2 per cent on these certificates.

moved that the clause stand down, in order to give the Ministry an opportunity of consulting together, and to place something before the House upon which they could all agree.

said that he did not think that necessary, because they all accepted the reasonable proposition of the Minister of Finance.

said that he would agree to the clause standing over.

It was agreed that the clause should stand over.

Clause 54 was verbally amended.

On clause 55, friendly societies,

asked for an explanation as to the effect of this clause.

said that a provision of this kind had been in existence for many years. Friendly societies, “or any other club, society, or fund approved by the Postmaster-General,” were allowed to deposit up to the maximum amount without restriction. The societies must be Approved by the Postmaster-General.

thought that they should lean rather to individuals than societies, and he moved that the words “without restriction” be deleted for the purpose of making such deposits subject to restrictions specified in preceding clauses.

hoped the amendment would not be accepted.

pointed out that the provision was made really for the benefit of poor people.

withdrew his amendment, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 56, interest,

moved: In line 61, to omit thirtieth day of June in every” and to substitute “end of every Savings Bank.

said that they could not agree to this clause. His hon. friend was taking power to pay interest up to the rate of 5 per cent. If he issued a notice to-morrow that he was going to pay 5 per cent, he would empty all the banks in the country, and, besides, he would be doing something for which the Savings Banks were never intended. He (Sir Edgar) thought the limit should be 31/2 per cent.

proposed as an amendment, that the words “not exceeding the rate of £5 per cent, per annum” be deleted.

said that if they did not fix some limit us to the rate of interest they might have a Government short of money offering a large rate of interest, which would, as his hon. friend had said, practically clear all the banks of the country. He thought that if they fixed the rate at 31/2 or 4 per cent, it would be a fair amount.

said that the present Cape Act of 1883 provided for 5 per cent., although they had never paid more than 31/2 per cent. He thought it was advisable that the Government should have the right to give interest up to 5 per cent. It was possible that the Government might want money, but if the committee were at all strong on the subject he thought that, as a compromise, they might make the limit 4 per cent. Of course, when they said 4 per cent., they did not mean that the Government would pay 4 per cent. He considered that the Government should have the right to go a little higher than the interest actually paid.

said that his hon. friend had given the worst possible reason for this. The Savings Bank did not exist for the purpose of enabling the Government to get money. The Minister must get that idea out of his head altogether. The Savings Bank was for the purpose of giving poor people good security. The inducement was good security, and a fair rate of interest.

said that he must congratulate his hon. friend (Sir Edgar Walton) on having made his first true Opposition speech. (Laughter.) It was the sort of speech that was made by a Treasurer when he got into Opposition. He (Mr. Merriman) always thought that the management of the Savings Bank was an extremely tricky one, but he had never hesitated to use the balances in the Savings Bunk. (Laughter.) He congratulated his hon. friend (Sir Edgar Walton) on his repentance.

said he remembered the time when the rates given by the banks on fixed deposit were 6 or 8 per cent.

said that he quite appreciated what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) had said about not financing through the Post Office Savings Bank. If it were thought that 31/2per cent would meet the case he was prepared to accept lit.

moved to delete 5 per cent, and to substitute 8 per cent., and after “pounds,” in line 56, to insert “ten shillings. ”

said he did not think they should have a higher rate than 31/2 per cent. (Opposition “Hear, hear.”) He told his hon. friend the Minister that he thought the House would have the good sense to move In 31/2 per cent. (Laughter.)

said he would accept the amendments.

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 66,

moved to omit clause 65, and to substitute the following: “66. (1) The Postmaster-General shall keep an account of all sums deposited and paid under the provisions of this Act relating to the Savings Bank, and shall pay in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may direct, to the Public Debt Commissioners for investment by them, the amount of such moneys deposited, provided that the Treasury may authorise the Postmaster General to retain such portions of such moneys as represents a reasonable working balance in connection with the repayment of deposits to depositors. (2) The Public Debt Commissioners shall pay to the Postmaster-General the interest derived from the investment of such moneys, and so much of such interest as is not required for the payment of interest to depositors under section fifty-six of this Act shall be regarded as revenue, and dealt with accordingly.”

What is the object of this new clause?

replied that the clause had been redrafted to meet the requirements of the Treasury.

The new clause was agreed to.

moved to omit clause 67, and to substitute the following: “(1) As soon as possible, and in every case within four months after the close of each Savings Bank year, the Postmaster-General shall prepare and render to the Controller and Auditor-General for examination a balance sheet of the Savings Bank and accounts in such form as may be approved by the Treasury of the receipts and payments in connection with the Savings Bank and such other accounts and statements as may be required by the Treasury, and copies of all such accounts and statements shall be sent to the Treasury. (2) The balance sheet, accounts, and statements aforesaid shall be certified and reported upon by the Controller and Auditor-General and submitted to the Minister of Finance and laid before Parliament in the same manner as and simultaneously with the Finance and Appropriation accounts of the Union.”

drew attention to the word “Treasury” in sub-section (1). In the Audit Bill which was being considered “up-stairs,” the word “Treasury” there was given a distinct meaning. There was, however, no definition of “Treasury” in this Bill. They had dropped the use of the word “Treasury” altogether except in the Audit Bill, and he moved that the word “Treasury” wherever it appeared be deleted for the substitution of the words “(Minister of Finance.”

said he had no objection to the amendment.

The new clause, as amended, agreed to.

On clause 68, expenses of working bank to be paid out of money provided by Parliament,

moved to delete the following words: “and all surpluses or profits arising from the administration of the funds of the bank shall be paid in as revenue of the department.”

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 60, amounts standing to credit of any depositor may be paid in to revenue if no deposit or withdrawal made during period of 1-5 years,

moved in line 45 to omit “the Postmaster-General may repay the same to that depositor or person” and substitute “the Minister of Finance shall, if the Postmaster-General certify that the depositor or person aforesaid is entitled there to, pay such amount out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

moved that the words “sinking fund” be inserted in place of “revenue of the department.”

did not think that this was the right place for the amendment.

said he thought they should lay down a policy. They wanted to strengthen rather than weaken the sinking fund.

again protested that the proposal should be included in the measure which the Treasurer mentioned in his Budget speech.

said he was only following out the policy of the past.

said that the amount would help the surplus for each particular year.

said it would tend to extravagance. In his hon. friend’s first year of office, he had snaffled that surplus, and had devoted it to public works.

said his hon. friend was unkind to say that he had snaffled any balances. But he hoped his hon. friend would not press the matter.

said that it was necessary to lay down in the Bill what was to be done with these balances. His hon. friend (Mr. Hull) had said that these balances should be paid into revenue. Why? When they got a windfall like this, it should be paid into sinking funds. There was always a lot of pressure on the Treasurer to spend, spend, spend, and if he got a windfall of this kind, his colleagues would know and press him. He (Sir E. Walton) had been in the same position himself.

said that the Treasury were trying to lay down certain sound financial principles. The proper place to make the required provision was in the measure that was to come before the House.

said he had not the slightest doubt that his hon. friend was conscientiously trying to lay down these principles, but he thought that this was the proper Bill in which to make provision When the Cape was “hard up,” a clause was introduced into one Bill which diverted these moneys into the public revenue, although by law they should have gone into the Sinking Fund. He was afraid the successors of his hon. friend would not always be so strong as he (Mr. Hull) was. However, he would withdraw the amendment.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was agreed to.

It was agreed that clause 72—power of Postmaster-(General to issue certificates— should stand over.

On clause 75, certificates to be signed by the Postmaster-General,

asked if a quorum was present.

Of course there is.

What about it?

The clause was verbally amended.

In clause 76 a consequential amendment was made.

asked if any provision were made for payment of compensation for damage caused by men repairing wires?

It is provided for.

Clause 81 was amended.

On clause 82, compensation for injury to property,

moved: In line 3, to omit “In the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act,” and to substitute “ln the carrying out of all such works the Postmaster-General shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the public, but”; in line 5, after “to” to insert “or save so far as injury to any person may be caused by the failure of the Post master-General to carry out the provisions of this section:”; in line 10, after “broken up” to insert “while any street, road, or footpath is open, broken up, or otherwise obstructed under the powers aforesaid the Postmaster-General shall cause the works to be at all times fenced or guarded and during the night lighted”; and in line 11, after “compensation” to insert “in the case of the injury aforesaid being caused to any work, property, or standing crops shall,”.

said he wished to move am amendment to the effect that compensation should be paid for damage caused to trees in constructing or repairing telegraph lines.

supported the previous speaker, as he noticed that there was no compensation provided for in this case.

said he could not accept the amendment, because it involved additional burdens on the Exchequer.

thought the Minister should allow the clause to stand over.

said he hoped this would be agreed to. The proposal seemed to him very reasonable, as the erection of these telegraph poles might mean the sacrifice of timber, and a farmer would, perhaps, be more prepared to lose a portion of his standing crops than his timber.

said he was prepared to consider the matter. The telegraphs, however, were a convenience to the public, but they did not pay. In a certain sense they were run at the expense of the Post Office. He did not think that trees were going to be unnecessarily chopped down, but he would give the matter further consideration.

The amendments were agreed to.

Clauses 85 and 87 were amended.

On clause 89, Order of transmission of telegrams,

asked whether certain telegrams of special importance, involving, matters of life and death, might not be given precedence over others.

said that the matter had been discussed for some time past, but no definite conclusion had been arrived at, although the matter was still under consideration.

thought that sufficient latitude was not left in the clause.

said that one Suggestion had been made to lower the rate for might services, and another suggestion was that an express rate, as one might term it, might be given for life and death telegrams, or those of extreme urgency. He asked whether the Minister was not prepared further to consult with his officers on the matter.

said that he was quite prepared to do so.

said that where there was an urgent matter the officials used common sense in despatching the most important first.

Clause 89 was agreed to.

On clause 90, what telegrams may be refused transmission,

pointed out that in the Australian Bill provision was made for the Governor-General, in case of emergency, to use submarine cables, wireless telegraphy apparatus, and so forth. He drew the Minister’s attention to that provision.

I will make a note of it.

On clause 98,

asked what about a man who opened a telegram addresed to his wife? (Laughter.)

Clause 104 was amended.

On clause 108, accidental or negligent injury to telegraph lines, etc.,

said that telegraph lines were laid over private property. A person was made liable for any damage to a telegraph line which might be done by his animals. He thought this was too drastic.

said he would prefer that the hon. member, if he had any amendment, should bring it up at a later stage. He thought they might pass the clause for the present. It was identical to the provisions in the Cape, Transvaal, and Natal Acts.

The clause was agreed to.

was of opinion that the point raised by the hon. member (Mr. Heatlie) was deserving of consideration.

pointed out that the clause had been passed.

Clauses 110 and 112 were ordered to stand over.

On clause 117, non-liability of department,

moved in line 3, immediately before the words “no legal proceedings, to insert “save as is otherwise provided in this Act,” and in line 10, to add at the end of the clause: “Provided that nothing in this section contained shall be construed as exempting the Government or the Postmaster-General from liability for damage or loss caused to any person by reason of fraud on the part of an officer in relation to his official duties.

said he did not see why the Department should not be responsible for mistakes made by its clerks. He stated the case of a man who had saved £200, and who had his bank book stolen whilst in hospital. The money was obtained from the bank by the thief, but the real owner did not lose, the bank being responsible. And why shouldn’t a Government Department be made responsible? He suggested that the matter should stand over.

said that if the Department were made liable for telegraphic errors, especially in boom times, the consequences would be very serious. They would have the Government I involved in the most serious losses.

supported the Government’s proposal.

repeated that banks were liable, and he did not see why the Government should not be.

said that in this Bill he went considerably further than the old Act. Where there was fraud by the officials, the Department undertook responsibility. If the House adopted the suggestion of the hon. member for Springs, there would be no end of cases against the Government.

moved the following new clause, put on the paper by Sir H. Juta: “117. Any claim against the Government which would, if such claim had arisen against a subject within the Union of South Africa, be the ground of an action in any competent Court, shall be cognisable by the said Court, whether such claim shall arise or have arisen out of any contract entered into on behalf of the said Government, or out of any wrong committed by any servant of the said Government acting within the scope of his authority as such servant, provided that any such wrong caused by the fraud, theft, or any criminal conduct on the part of any such servant shall be deemed to have been caused within the scope of his authority.”

said he thought the Department should be liable in a case where money was paid out wrongly, owing to gross, carelessness.

said that if the Government were to make itself liable for everything, depositors would not take such care of their books.

said that the hon. member for George had raised a fair question. No doubt the Post Office took the same care as a bank. But, supposing that care was not taken, would the Post Office shirk responsibility? The Government was better able to bear loss than an individual depositor. The Post Office took care that the depositor suffered if he was careless; if the Post Office was careless, it took care that it did not suffer.

said the amendment went too far, and he could not accept it. As to the Kimberley case, although there was fraud on the part of the postal officer, the Government was exonerated.

thought surely an action should lie against the Government.

appealed to the Minister to allow the clause to stand over. To bring it forward at that time of the night—eleven o’clock—was not doing justice either to the subject or to the House. (Hear, hear). He protested against such procedure.

wished to know if the Minister was going to force the clause through at that late hour in, a half-empty House? Why should Government stand outside the pale of the ordinary law The defence raised by Government in the Kimberley case was a dishonest one. Was the Minister going to continue that system? If he tried to force the clause through he would force them to oppose it. He warned the Minister that there was a larger Court of Appeal than that House, and that was the public. If the clause were passed, the day would come —and at no far distant date—when the House would adopt an amendment altering the hon. gentleman’s decision. The Minister of Finance might laugh, but stronger men than he had had to bow their heads to the weight of public opinion.

rose to a point of order.

said people would imagine that they were introducing this for the first time, but it was the law already.

It is a had law.

said he had a memorandum which, if the hon. member would read, would make him alter his opinion. This amendment had been before the House for days, and he hoped that he would now allow the committee to come to a vote.

said, seeing that this was an important subject, he thought they ought to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said he sympathised with his hon. friend’s (Sir David Graaff’s) position, because if they adopted the amendment they would have to pay a less interest, but certain hon. members had very strong opinions on the matter, and he thought they ought to report progress now.

said that he regretted he could not meet his hon. friend. It was now late in the session, and that amendment had been on the paper for some days past. He had fully gone into the question, and the clause as originally drafted was a sufficient safeguard to the public; but in order to make it more secure the amendment had been introduced; and the people who had made representations to the Post Office said that they were more than satisfied when they saw that amendment.

referred to the Auditor-General’s report, page 104: Legal expenses, £135 1s. 10d., being costs of action in connection with a fraudulent withdrawal of £210 from the Transvaal Post Office Savings Bank. Judgment had been given against the Government, with costs, and the Court ruled that paragraph 24 of the Savings Bank Regulations in the Transvaal was ultra vires, so that his hon. friend was not correct in his statement.

My hon. friend is quite wrong. I said in this Colony—not the Transvaal.

We have no colonies now—we have the Union.

said that the evidence which the hon. member had given was very important. It appeared that the Government was so careful in protecting itself that in the Transvaal they found that they were liable; so, naturally, when they brought in a law under the Union, they tried to legislate outside their liability. He referred to proposed reforms in the Post Office in Britain; and said that the Savings Bank competed with other banks; and surely the public ought to be protected against criminal acts or fraud on the part of the Government’s own servants.

said that the protection which the Government had against acts in the Post Office existed in Great Britain and several of the Dominions.

hoped they would let the clause stand over.

asked whether, by a stroke of the pen, they could take away the liability which the Government at present owed to depositors in the Transvaal.

did not see why the Minister could not allow the clause to stand over.

urged that progress should now be reported. There were he observed, other contentious clauses to follow this. Some of the members on that side felt strongly on this clause.

said that this was not the last chance that they would have. There was still the third reading stage.

There is very little chance at that stage.

again appealed to the Minister to agree to report progress.

said that if this clause upon which they had wasted so much time were allowed to stand over, it only meant that they would have the discussion all over again.

said, he strongly resented; the use by the Minister of the words “wasting time.” He denied that he had wasted time.

said that if the clause were discussed tomorrow, they would not get any further. He presumed that the committee had made up its mind. He urged the lateness of the session as another reason for taking the vote at once.

said he thought it would be better to report progress at that stage.

said he thought the Rill had had a record passage, and with regard to the most important clause, it had been held over by the other side. Was that a waste of time? He appealed to the Minister to report progress. Continuing, he said he had heard of another case where the Post Office kept a trench open. A man fell in and got killed, and his widow applied for relief. The case was heard, and though negligence was actually proved, the case went against her. So there were other cases besides that of the ordinary depositor. Surely, the Post Office ought to be liable The Government appeared to want to get rid of all liability under this Bill.

said that if the “trench case” happened under this Bill the Government would be liable.

The amendment of Sir David Graaff was being put, when

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

The motion was negatived.

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to.

Clauses 119 and 120 were amended.

New clause 121,

moved: That the following be a mew clause: “121. The Governor General shall have power to prescribe from time to time by regulation,: (a) That all rough or uncut precious stones, unwrought gold, and ostrich feathers, or any of such articles, shall be exclusively exported from the Union through the Post Office or through any other channel; (b) the fees, rates, and charges which shall be payable in ’ respect of the conveyance of any such article when so exported; (c) the conditions upon which such articles shall be conveyed when so exported; and any person who acts in contravention of any such regulation shall incur in respect of each consignment which constitutes the contravention a penalty of five hundred pounds sterling, which shall be recoverable by action in a competent Court at the suit of the Minister of Justice.”

Shortly afterwards,

moved: That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and it was ordered that the House resume in committee tomorrow.