from William McConnell, of Wentworth, who served under Natal Government.

from C. H. B. van der Riet, late in service of the Orange Free State.

as Chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which recommended amendments to clauses 1 and 5, and to the schedule.

moved in line 5 to omit “£7,707” and to substisute “£59,427.”

said he had not yet had a copy of the Bill, and did not know what the amendment involved.

said that the amendment was simply to alter the form of the Bill; the substance remained the same, and the same amount was to be appropriated.

said he protested against the Bill being rushed through in this way, when members had not been supplied with copies.

said he sympathised with hon. members in their protest. The Bill, however, had been before the Public Accounts Committee, and was circulated to hon. members yesterday. It was essential that the measure should pass through both Houses before the 31st of March, and he therefore appealed to hon. members to allow it to go through the committee stage now.

said that copies of the Bill were already before the House.

said that a copy of the Bill would be found on members’ files.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 2 was ordered to stand over.

On clause 3,

moved certain formal amendments.

Agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved certain formal amendments as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.

Agreed to.

Clause 2 was then agreed to.

Government Brandy Board, year ended December 31, 1910.

moved: That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of giving relief to the Co-operative Wineries, with power to take evidence and call for papers, the committee to consist of eight members, and that the following be members of the committee, viz.: Messrs. Currey, Griffin, Brain, Sir Edgar Walton, General Lemmer, and the mover. He said that no representative of the Western Province wine-farmers had been appointed on the committee, because he desired that it should consist of independent members.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

said he desired to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a matter of public importance. The matter had reference to the question of ostriches, and he wished to refer to information which appeared in Tuesday’s “Argus.”

I would like the hon. member to bring up the motion he proposes to move. I may point out to the hon. member that the matter is now before the House. The second reading of this Bill has already been taken.

It refers to information which this paper stated was divulged by a Minister to a farmer interested in the ostrich feather industry.

I think the hon. member must give notice of that. I don’t think that it is a subject of much public importance.

moved the second reading of the Bill. He said that he was seeking authority to expend the sum of three millions sterling. That sum at first sight might seem very large, but it was arrived at upon the basis of six weeks’ expenditure. He hoped that before the six weeks had lapsed the House would have given the necessary authority for the expenditure as provided for in the Estimates now before the House. The sum of £3,000,000 would be applied as follows: £2,141,000 for revenue services, and £858,000 for loan services. The revenue services were unusually heavy during April, because they had to meet interest Charges upon the debt of the Union. Of the loan services, a sum of over £600,000 would have to be provided to meet the payment of certain debentures.

Do I understand that the Hon. the Minister asks this to cover not only the ordinary revenue expenditure, but also loan expenditure?

Yes.

Well, I have never known of that having been done before. Proceeding, he said that the ordinary course was, before the end of the financial year, to apply for authority to spend money so as to enable the Government to carry on the administration of the country during the time provision was being made by the House for the ordinary expenditure, but when the Government asked for loan expenditure as well, and put it into the Bill, all he could say was that he had never known of it Having been done before. It was quite unusual and quite unnecessary. The Minister of Finance had his Loan Bill before the House, and he would not commence the works authorised in the Bill before it was passed.

said he hoped that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hull) would, when he replied to the general remarks on the Bill, make the matter perfectly clear. He understood there was nothing at all unusual in asking for this sum of money. It was about equal to three months’ expenditure, provided for in the Estimates. There was nothing unusual in asking for the money, but this was certainly the first time he had ever heard a proposal to pay loan expenditure under the Appropriation Act. The Minister was wrong. To do so did not agree with the terms of the Appropriation Act. The object of the Act was to enable the Government to carry on the business of the country. Would they forgive him if he took the opportunity of going into the general finances of the country? Let him begin at once by congratulating the Minister of Finance upon the very improved tone of his speech in reply to the Budget debate. It showed that the discussion had had a mollifying and an improved effect upon the Treasurer’s whole tone. He had no fault to find with him; he took no exception to his remarks, which were fair debating remarks. But the hon. member (Mr. Hull) began by sneering at him for always making the same speeches upon the finances. Well, it was perfectly true. He did make the same remarks this year as he did in 1906-7. Well, was he wrong in 19C6-7? He hoped from the bottom of his heart that he was, but he was not wrong then. He hoped he was wrong now. Then he preached economy. He preached it now. He always preached it, and always practised it when he was in office. Now, he (the Treasurer) preached economy, but the difference between them was that he (the Treasurer) did not practise it. He (the speaker) did. No doubt the time would come when the Treasurer, in the long and useful public career he had before him, would also take the opportunity of practising economy as well as of preaching it. Now, he took exception to the Prime Minister’s irritability and impatience of criticisms. He (General Botha) must know that a member of Parliament was sent down here, not to swallow everything that was put before him. Not at all. He (the speaker) was down here to do his duty to the country. And, really, the Prime Minister, and in fact, the Treasurer too, ought to be satisfied with their little group of official M’Pongos. (Laughter.) Every native chief of any eminence had an official praiser, who was called a M’Pongo. Whenever the chief spoke, the M’Pongo shouted: “You are great; you shake the earth.” (Laughter.) Well, they had their little group of M’Pongos in this House. For instance, the member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and one or two others whenever the Prime Minister opened his mouth, immediately exclaimed, “You are great,” and the Treasurer had got his little group of subsidiary M’Pongos. (More laughter.) He must say that the Prime Minister must learn, and he hoped he would learn, that they were not sent down to swallow blindly what was put before them. At any rate, as long as he (Mr. Merriman) stood there, he was not going to do that. He was going to do his duty in offering fair and open criticism. They must do their duty to the country. Of course he knew that to practise economy was a most unpopular thing. He wanted to say a few words about the Treasurer’s onslaught on his figures. He (Mr. Merriman) had made a comparison between the revenue of 1908-9 and now, and expressed his regret that there had been no diminution in the expenditure, and that they were now on an ascending scale instead of a descending scale. Then the Treasurer had said that he had attempted to mislead the House by quoting wrong figures. He would not go into that now about misleading the House. Did the Treasurer mean him to include the redemption of the Selati railway debentures of £755,000. or the adjustment of the Civil Service Loan Fund, or the arrear Government contributions, or the adjustment of the Constabulary loan? It would be ridiculous to include these things, and he could not think who could have prompted the Treasurer in a criticism of that kind, because it was an entirely wrong one. He (Mr. Merriman) (had made a comparison, and he made it over again; and what he had complained of, and complained of still, was that the establishment had increased.

said he agreed with his right hon. friend that they would have to take a vote upon this amount of £750,000, because it would fall due during the coming month. He wanted, however, to deal with some figures which the Treasurer had complained were misleading. He had not taken into account £1,500,000 for extraordinary expenditure, that had been dealt with by the right hon. member for Victoria “West. He was very much astonished that the Treasurer with the very large staff at his disposal did not discover that there was an amount of £73,000 extraordinary expenditure spent in the Free State. That, however, he gave him credit for. He also gave the Treasurer credit for the loan and contingency expenditure. Taking all the items into account, the expenditure in 1909 amounted to £15,111,000, and he would like to ask his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) what was the difference between the Supplementary Estimates and the extraordinary expenditure in the Transvaal? To that must be added £750,000. Giving the Treasurer credit for all the items mentioned, the actual expenditure during the current year would be £16,915,000, a difference of £1,804,000.

drew attention to a statement appearing in a newspaper, which stated that the Government were in possession of information regarding the ostrich feather industry. Although, so far, they were only rumours concerning the nature of the information, still, they were causing very serious alarm to the ostrich feather farmers. It was stated that the Government had divulged a statement to a certain farmer engaged in the industry, with the stipulation that it should not be disclosed, but it was known that the party to whom it was disclosed was wearing a very serious face. (Laughter.) The whole House was well aware of the great importance of the industry to the country. The value of the export amounted to 2½ millions annually, and the industry had done more than any other to develop agriculture in the country. (Hear, hear.) He would like to get some information from the Government upon the subject, as it was a serious thing if this industry should in any way be injured.

said he would like to add a word of warning in regard! to the facts that had been mentioned by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Vintcent).

Are they facts?

Well, they are facts in so far as the matter is considered serious, and it is the duty of the Government to give information to the House. Millions of pounds were invested in this industry. Practically the finest irrigation district in the world—Oudtshoorn—was supported by the ostrich feather industry. If this was only a rumour then it was the duty of the Government to tell them. The rumour was, that, during the visit of the Minister of Education to Middelburg, in connection with the opening of the Agricultural College there, he and the principal (Mr. Thornton), who they knew had been sent to the United States and Australia to increase his knowledge of agriculture, had discussed the seriousness of competition in the ostrich feather industry due to some developments that might bring about damage to the industry. The information, it was stated, was of such a character that it could not be conveyed to farmers generally, but was told in confidence to one of them. The ostrich-feather industry supported numerous other industries, and it would be a serious matter indeed if it sustained injury. The hon. member complained of the delay in proceeding; with the measure for dealing with the export of ostriches. Here they were at March 29, and the measure, was so far down on the list that it was impossible to pass it this session. The House had been under the impression that birds were not sent out of the Union. Then they received information that birds were being sent out to neighbouring territories. They were first told that many birds had gone from Prieska—certain two hundred—to German West Africa. Then they were lulled into a sense of security by being informed that these birds were of the common and ordinary variety. He (Sir Thomas) had now in his possession a wire from one of the most prominent Midland farmers—Mr. Struben, of Tafelberg—stating that 26 truck-loads of ostriches passed through on Sunday from Graham’s Town to Prieska (apparently on the way to German West Africa), and urging immediate action. He (Sir Thomas) wished to bring this matter in the strongest possible manner before the Government. He could assure the Government that a very large number of farmers in this country were in a state of ferment and unrest, because they did not know what was going to be the position if this exportation of the very best birds in the country was going to be allowed. He was not discussing the question of whether they ought not to limit the exportation of ostriches, but the matter was one of such serious consequence to a large number of people engaged in the industry that he did say the House should have an opportunity of discussing the position. He thought the House should be given the fullest information on the subject, and Should be assured that everything possible was being done to protect an industry in which the well-being of a great many people was bound up. Would the Prime Minister inform the House whether there was any truth in the statement referred to?

spoke of the danger with which the ostrich-feather industry was being threatened. He said that the Prime Minister had promised that the matter of the exportation of ostriches would be dealt with, but in the meantime nothing had been done, and ostriches could be exported. He hoped that the Government would bring the Bill as soon as possible before the House. They could not be put off from day to day, because the ostrich industry, which was so very important to South Africa, and on which so many people depended, was threatened with a serious danger. They must be extremely careful not to let that monopoly get out of the hands of the people of South Africa. It was only the importance of the matter which induced him to find fault with the Government’s lackadaisical attitude. The danger was that export would take place via German territory.

condemned the attitude taken up by the last speaker; and said that the late Cape Government had entered into an agreement with the Government of German South-west Africa. If there were any blame, the late Government was to blame, but it was not right to blame the present Government, which could not deal with that matter with one stroke of the pen. Certain promises had been made to the German Government, and these must be carried out. They must be reasonable if they wanted to criticise the Government. He trusted the Government would give a satisfactory answer, because the industry was nascent in his constituency.

said that the ostrich farmers of the Cape had not the grain and other industries to fall back upon, and the ostrich industry was of the utmost importance to the Cape. He did not want to say that the Government had acted wrongly, but they wanted to know what the Government was doing, and whether ostriches were, or were not, being exported to America and German South-west Africa?

said he endorsed the remarks of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn Mr. Schoeman). They did not wish to criticise the present Government for the misdeeds of past Administrations, but what they did maintain was that this matter was of such importance that something should have been done to safeguard the huge interests of the ostrich farmers of this country. Thousands of pounds had been invested for the purpose of developing this industry, and thousands more would be invested. There seemed to be a danger of a set-back to the industry. Surely if the Government had any information it should be given to the House. It was almost certain that certain information was given at Middelburg to a prominent ostrich farmer, who considered the information of a very serious nature. If the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) knew what a big and important industry this was he would not have spoken in the slight and airy way in which he had done.

I know that very well.

said he must add his support to the views of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, and he hoped that a clear statement from the Government would be placed before the House.

said that the Prime Minister had done everything he could to deal with the matter, and to prevent the exportation of ostriches. The hon. member alluded to the exportation of 140 ostriches, but most of them, he said, were of such a poor quality that they would not be able to do much with them. As to what hon. members had said about no birds being sent to Prieska itself, there were ostrich farmers in Prieska who were as good and as progressive as those of the Oudtshoorn district. So that if birds were sent to Prieska that did not necessarily mean that they were going to German South-west Africa. It was true that a certain number of birds had been exported, but there was no cause for alarm.

said he thought this was a very urgent matter. Within the last few months a meeting of the Agricultural Union was held at the City Hall—he believed in November—and a discussion took place not only in regard to allowing ostriches to be exported to German South-west Africa, but also as to extending the privilege to East Africa. If his memory served him correctly, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was one of the strongest advocates for extending it to East Africa, and the Mr. Struben to whom he had referred was also one of the strongest advocates for extending it. They discussed the matter in committee about a year ago, when the gentleman who had now sent the telegram produced by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was one of the strong advocates for extending the export of ostriches to East Africa. At Cradock they had another meeting. There not only Mr. Struben but a good many other ostrich-farmers were strongly in favour of extending it to British East Africa. One or two of the ostrich farmers were against it, but it was carried that the privilege should be extended to British East Africa. He would also urge the Government to look into this matter, and at as early a date as possible give them some information as to the cause of this change of front.

said that the name of his brother had been mentioned during this debate. He had had correspondence with him on this question, land his brother informed him that at one time a great many ostrich - farmers were very much in favour of extending the same privileges which had been granted to German South-west Africa to British East Africa, on the ground that they were fellow British colonists. That was to them at that time a sufficient reason, but later on they heard from persons interested up there that in that part of the world the ostrich industry was practically in the hands of Arabs, and they (the ostrich-farmers) rather changed their point of view upon learning that it was not reputable white farmers who were interested, but that at present the industry was in the hands of Arabs of a very low type. They therefore came to the conclusion that the much safer course for the benefit of the industry in South Africa would be to limit it practically to this country, and they had accordingly changed their point of view in this matter. Now they were entirely satisfied that the only safe thing was to restrict the industry to the four corners of the Union of South Africa, and let other people look after themselves. He did not want to trench upon the subject matter of the Bill, which had been postponed from time to time, but it seemed to him that they were justified in protesting against the dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with this matter. The Government ought to push on with the matter at once. They knew that the position had become almost hopeless not only here and there, but that birds were being hurried through as fast as they could be against the time when the Government was going to pass a law to prohibit the export of ostriches. It was absurd to say that there were as good ostrich-farmers at Prieska as there were at Oudtshoorn. (Cries of dissent.) Although the farmers at Prieska might be as good, the effect of their work was not so good. The only place where 26 loads of ostriches could go to from Albany to Prieska was across the border into German South-west Africa. (Cries of “Oh.”) The hon. member for Prieska knew it.

I don’t know it.

rejoined that the hon. member ought to know it. Birds had never been sent there in that number before.

said that he regretted that the debate had taken such a line, because it made matters more difficult than they were already instead of the opposite. They got some hon. members opposing others, and instead of coming to an agreement on the subject, they only succeeded in dividing the House. There was only one question before them, and that was the best way to protect the industry in question. Was it the best way to deal with that matter to introduce hasty legislation one year, which they would only have to repeal the next year? Existing legislation was, in his opinion, the best that could have been drawn up, and had the support of those who were interested in the industry. The intention of the Bill which had been introduced was to give increased protection to the industry, and not the opposite—not to break down, but to build up. What was now really being asked for was that that measure should be withdrawn, and that the facilities which had been given to other countries should be withdrawn. (Several HON. MEMBERS: “No.”) They had no right to put the country in a difficult position, and that was just his difficulty. If they withdrew, they were not the only parties concerned in the matter, because there was a kind of treaty—-an understanding—which had been arrived at between them and the Portuguese and the German Governments. They could not at once break that agreement; their word and their promises were involved, and they must act honourably. They must deal with these people too, and see how the whole question could be solved in the best and most reasonable way. The Government were dealing with the matter, and the reason why that measure stood so low down on the order paper was because these negotiations were going on, and the Government were seeing what could be done to satisfy the wishes of the hon. members from the Cape. (Cheers.) Well, what he was now saying he had said to nearly all those who had spoken just now on that matter, and he had also consulted the leader of the Opposition, and he was acting with his approval. Under these circumstances, he did not think it right to start a hare, and to go hunting it like that. (Laughter.) What had been said by some hon. members might, in fact, do a great deal of harm, in view of the negotiations which were going on; and therefore he regretted that such a debate had been started on a side-wind like that. Coming to the question whether any birds were being exported, he said that he had made investigations, and, as far as his information went, no birds had been sent away from South Africa by sea. He was doing his utmost to get all possible information on the matter. If he were informed that any of this exportation was contemplated or going on there was no reason why negotiations should not be broken off, and legislation should not at once be introduced to protect the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry, therefore, that the hon. member for Ladismith had said that the people concerned were not being met at all. He did not know with whom the hon. member had spoken in regard to that matter, because he (General Botha) was doing all he possibly could to protect the industry. The Bill, he would like to remind them, was still before the House, and in all probability they would return to it. If there were a feeling that the old law was better than the proposed legislation, the matter rested with the House. There seemed to be a difference of opinion, not against the ostrich-feather industry, but as to the best method of protecting it. As to the newspaper report which had been referred to, he did not know what had happened at Middelburg, but he wanted to say that it was absolute nonsense to say that a secret danger was threatening the industry. Where was it to come from? was what he asked.

The newspapers.

If they were to believe all that appeared in the newspapers, they would be nowhere. (Daughter.) Continuing, he said that there was nothing which could be done which would not be done by the Government for the reasonable protection of the industry, and there was nothing that he knew of which endangered the industry; if there were some danger threatening it, it was a danger which existed since the beginning, from the earliest times. As to what had been said about ostriches being exported and being sent away elsewhere by land, he had wired to magistrates that as soon as birds were being moved out of their districts, they should make a thorough investigation as to the number and the class of birds which were being moved, and he thought that that should Satisfy hon. members. It appeared that what Mr. Kuhn had said was correct. Hon. members might be assured that the Government was fully alive to the necessity for protecting the industry, and was taking all the necessary steps.

said he would like to add a few words to what the Prime Minister had said. Ostrich farming was one of the most important industries in the Cape Province, and had contributed very much to the prosperity of the country, and he did not think anybody could seriously insinuate that the Government were so indifferent to the welfare and interests of so large a class of farmers. But the matter was not quite so easy as hon. members thought. He took the case of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He did not wish to say it with the view of making a disagreeable remark, but apparently from what he said himself he had made up his mind on it.

I have.

Well, you have changed your mind. I don’t want to say that a wise man must not change his mind, but the hon. member has changed his mind in a comparatively short time, and that shows that the question is a very difficult one to deal with. Apparently a great number of people have changed their minds on the subject, too.

Practically all the ostrich farmers.

referred to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Schoeman), whom he said had never changed his opinion. Proceeding, he said that for some years there had been legislation in this country, and there had been an agreement with two neighbouring nations, the German and Portuguese Governments.

Only for a very short period.

For some time past. It would be very dangerous for us to in any way quarrel with them on this question. If we were to take steps, without reference to their susceptibilities, and override their wishes, they had it in their power to do this country incalculable harm. In the first place these people had birds which they could export, but even if they had no birds, could we protect the whole boundary between German West Africa and the Cape Province and other portions of the Union? It would be impossible to do so. We had to realise that these people had a large number of ostriches, and if we were on bad terms with them, or quarrelled with them, they would not observe their agreement with us. Therefore, it was a matter for very serious consideration whether they would be wise to legislate. If these people took offence at this legislation, then they might legislate as much as they liked, but that wound not prevent the export into German South-West or Portuguese territory. In their own interests, it was best to be careful of the steps they should take.

said he thought the discussion had done considerable good, and they had heard, with the greatest satisfaction, that there was nothing in the rumour. Nobody could accuse him of speaking in his own interests, as he was not interested to any great extent in ostrich farming, but he had a strong feeling that this matter should not be ignored, because he believed the people in the country felt that the measure prohibiting the exportation of ostriches was a very necessary one, and they had no right to disregard that feeling. If there was a possibility of this Bill going through, then he would wart patiently and discuss the matter then.

said he could not understand what had caused the anxiety. If America had had no ostriches then he could understand it, but America had ostriches, and the same kind that they had here. The Government they knew were trying to do their very best, and he thought ostrich farmers ought not to be unreasonable. They were claiming that the ostrich feather industry should be narrowed down to the Union, although they must know it was impossible.

said he was not asking in this Bill for authority to spend this loan money. If hon. members would look at section 1 of this Bill they would see that he was asking to withdraw a sum of not more than £3,000,000 for the Consolidated Revenue Fund. His offence evidently had been that he had given too much information, usually it was stated that he gave too little. His grievance against his right hon. friend was that when Mr. Merriman gave the expenditure of the four colonies prior to Union, he carefully omitted to tell the House that in that expenditure of £13,800,000 be had wholly emitted all reference to the expenditure of the four colonies on extraordinary services. If the right hon. gentleman had said that, land had stated that the expenditure on these extraordinary services amounted to £1,500,000, probably the whole of his criticism would have fallen flat. He (Mr. Hull) in his reply referred to a number of items to show that the comparison was not a fair one, and had said that he easily could give more figures, but that he thought he had supplied the House with sufficient to show that the right hon. gentleman’s figures were entirely unreliable. The hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) had reminded him (Mr. Hull) that he had omitted an item of £73,000, extraordinary expenditure in the Free State. That would have made his (Mr. Hull’s) case very much stronger. Then he (Mr. Hull) did not refer the other night to the increase in the Cape figures, owing to the revival of the payment of increments to Civil Servants. The right hon. gentleman had said that he was a humble and sincere supporter of the Government, but one would not expect him to make the kind of speech now that he did when he was leader of the Opposition in the Cape Parliament. Mir. Merriman would forgive him if he returned to the charge, and said that the right hon. gentleman had been most unfair that afternoon in his criticisms of the Government. Mr. Merriman said that if they counted up the number of officials who received salaries of £1,000 a year and upwards since Union they would be astounded. His right hon. friend knew perfectly well that this Government had not, with one exception, made a single salary in excess of £1,000. Every one of these salaries of £1,000 and upwards they inherited. The right hon. gentleman was most unfair, not only to him (Mr. Hull), but to hon. members and to the public outside, when he used an illustration of that kind. What did it come to? He (Mr. Hull) had succeeded in upsetting the figures Mr. Merriman and Mr. Jagger laboriously had compiled.

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

said they were now entering on an entirely new departure in that Bill. It was the practice for every country working under the British Constitution to frame its Appropriation Bills on the Estimates approved of by Parliament for the past year. Now, however, they had an Appropriation Bill in a totally different form—that was approving of expenditure not yet sanctioned by Parliament. Surely that was an entirely unconstitutional thing. There might be items in the Estimates—he did not say there were—which Parliament would not approve, yet by passing that Bill they would have sanctioned the expenditure upon that basis. That was surely wrong. He moved that clause 2 be omitted, and that the following be substituted: “The expenditure under this Act should be in conformity with the Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1911, which have been approved of by Parliament.”

said he could not see what the right hon. member’s idea was.

said the point was that if there was a grant to somebody under the Estimates for 1912, and Parliament did not approve of that grant under this Act, the Minister would have power to issue that grant. He did not wish to embarrass the Minister, but he wanted things done in conformity with Parliamentary usage. It was highly improper to put a thing in a clause like this which was not in the Estimates at all.

There are Loan Estimates.

But it is not in the ordinary Estimates of the year. They should, he contended, give specific Parliamentary sanction to these things.

agreed with Mr. Merriman.

said he thought Mr. Merriman was right. If, in the future, an Appropriation Bill were not passed, the Minister would be in an awkward position.

But the Appropriation Bills must be passed; otherwise, the country is at a deadlock.

But I mean with regard to specific items.

put the original clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

said he protested against this way of doing business; because it was entirely wrong.

Well, call for a division?

No; it is not a subject upon which there should be any controversy. We ought all to be anxious to have our financial transactions on a sound basis, and I believe if hon. members understood the position they would not hesitate for a minute.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the Bill be now read a third time.

I object.

The third reading was set down for tomorrow.

moved that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Railway and Harbours Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1912.

seconded.

said that the form in which the Estimates were presented to the House disclosed the financial position of the railways. It not only gave the Estimates of Expenditure, but it also gave the Estimates of Revenue, and showed how it was proposed to deal with the surplus which it was estimated there would be. Now, he would just like to point out that the capital expenditure from borrowed money and from money derived from railway revenue was the same as last year. Then the capital expenditure was £75,488,000.

I was asking for information.

asked what was the understanding? That no fresh borrowing should take place, except so far as lines agreed upon at the Convention were concerned, that where there were borrowing powers, either exercised or unexercised, the money to come from those powers should be utilised to carry out the works in respect of which the borrowing powers in the different Provinces were given. That was as he understood the matter. All these lines except two were commenced, there was Parliamentary authority for them, and when Union took place they were continued exactly in the same way as they would have been if the several Provinces had remained separate Provinces, and the only agreement in this respect that he could recall at the Convention was that they should not take borrowing powers beyond certain amounts, and certainly so far as the Cape was concerned, they had kept to the very letter to the understanding which was come to.

Cheap rates.

said he considered that with a population such as we had in this country, that was a very large number of passengers to carry. In looking over the figures, he was struck with the fact that there were practically as many second-class passengers as first-class passengers. It was obvious that, owing to the character of our population, people would not go into third-class Carriages; but, still, he thought it went to show that, taken as a whole, the white people of this country could afford to travel at a superior class to what they could in most other countries. (Dissent.) Yes, he thought so Now, the goods and minerals, including coal, carried in 1909, were £8,900,000; in 1910, £10,367,000; and the estimate for 1911-12 was £10,298,000, or a reduction of £148,000. Now, this estimate was due because it was anticipated that a very considerable quantity—in fact, the estimate was half a million tons—of coal was likely to be carried less than previously, owing to the fact that the Victoria Falls Power Company would require less coal, as they were going to supply electric power for the mines on the Rand. The number of train miles run in the past twelve months was 25,211,000. The estimate for the ensuing year was 25,779,000, or an increase in the estimate of 568,000 running miles. This increase was owing largely to the fact that between 400 and 500 miles of additional railway would be opened, and also owing to the fact that further facilities and advantages were to be given between different points. Now, he came to the Estimates for the ensuing financial year. The estimate of revenue from traffic —what he called subsidiary services were not included! here—was £11,181,000. In the past year it was £11,984,000. The estimate, therefore, was less by the large sum of £802,000. Now, it was always difficult to estimate with any, degree of accuracy where income was so largely affected by the fluctuations of trade as in this country. As his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) knew, some people estimated high, believing that, if they did that, it would bring revenue; but it did not, and it usually led to extravagance, and sometimes even to embarrassment. (Laughter.) Therefore, if he had erred, in consultation with those who advised him, it was on the side of caution.

What pensions?

I will come to that. There were two others, and therefore 65 would be retired, the amount of their emoluments being £36,140. Not a single one of those places would be filled; they were regarded as unnecessary and redundant. There was under consideration the retirement, in the head office, for the same reasons, of 52. The amount involved if another 52 were retired would be £14,039 in emoluments. The total then, if all retired, would be 117, and the amount of their emoluments £50,000. The amount of £9,350 was involved in gratuities and £15,100 in pensions. (An HON. MEMBER: A year?) Yes. So, he continued, after the first year there would be an annual saving of £49,000. He went on to refer to the position of the Cape when he was Commissioner some time ago. In 1908-9 they retrenched 1,804 officers and employees. They paid gratuities to the amount of £28,228, and pensions totalled £15,000. Therefore they paid £28,000 in gratuities, and subsequently they only paid £15,000 in pensions, and they saved £200,000. He only quoted these figures to show that they were endeavouring to run the railways in a satisfactory and economical manner. He had already had representations from hon. members upon this subject, and he had received deputations from the men, but all that could be done was simply to do one’s best and to try and help people on the railways that were not required, and who were thrown with their families on the world. They wanted to save as much distress as they could, but the only way to carry on the railway successfully was to carry it on as if it belonged to oneself.

regretted that no General Manager’s report had been laid before the House, because he thought if hon. members had the information such a report would contain they would far better be able to judge the whole railway position than they were now. Mr. Sauer had said that this policy was to spend as little as possible on railways and to make as much as he could. That was all right in reason, but they who lived in the interior did not want too much made out of the railways. They desired to see the Act of Union carried out, and that in four years the railways be run at cost price, because it was only by means of cheaper railway rates that they could ever open out and develop the interior. Continuing, Sir George said that the actual railway earnings per week for the year 1910-11 were about £223,000, and the estimated weekly earnings for 1911-12 were £224,000. Allowing for a reduction of £465,000 in railway rates, the estimated basis of revenue for the coming year was £213,000 per week. Certain figures he had used on a former occasion had been contradicted by the Minister of Railways. He (Sir George) thought the least the Minister could do when he made a speech carefully prepared for him by the heads of his department was to remember the figures. It was rather discourteous to contradict a member when he used figures given by the Minister himself. If they locked at the railway receipts for the past seven weeks they would see that they averaged £234,000 a week. He therefore thought the estimate of £213,000 a week was a reasonable one. But he would like to warn the hon. member for Beaconsfield when he talked in such eulogistic terms about the reduction of railway rates that their experience in the North was that reductions did not always pan out. It was curious that since February 1, with a reduction of rates of £465,000, the traffic was still £234,000 a week, which was the same amount as the weekly average for the whole of last year. He thought the reductions should be carefully watched.

said that, with regard to the fact that the estimated revenue from the railways was lower than last year’s figure, he quite thought there would be a shortfall; but it had to be borne in mind that another five hundred miles of railway were being opened. These new railways would, of course, take time to develop, and that was a consideration for placing the estimate at a low figure. But the point he wished to make was that the railways were not like the ordinary Civil Service of the country, in that the railways, were wise administration, could anticipate a shortfall. His experience had been that by carefully watching She rise and fall of trade they could keep control, to a great extent, of their expenditure, and adjust it to meet a shortfall here was not the slightest doubt, also, that by the amalgamation of the railways under one administration they could effect a great deal of economy in various ways. It would be possible to retrench, but there was need for caution in the way in which they retrenched, and they would require to be particularly careful that they did not carry retrenchment to the point of putting men on the pension list whom they might afterwards require. He mentioned this because of their experiences in the Transvaal. In 1909, the O.S.A.R. retrenched far too drastically, and when trade revived and the traffic increased again, the administration were at their wits’ end to cope with it. He hoped that when retrenchment became necessary, lit would be carried out on a fair basis, and that efficiency would be she test when it came to the matter of who were to remain. The history of recent retrenchment in the Transvaal was this: In 1907-8, when Responsible Government came, they retrenched very much in a department like the Post Office. The following year they had to have almost the same number of officers they had to begin with. Then the next year, they again retrenched, and so they alternated, from year to year. It was because of these experiences that he emphasised the need for carrying out retrenchment on a fair, careful, and economic basis. Now, with reference to the loss on the harbours, he was sorry to see it was greater this year than in the previous year. Of course, one could not expect things to be done in a day, but he did hope that the question of the loss on their harbours would seriously be taken in hand as soon as possible. He came next to the question; be touched upon last year with reference to the Rates Equalisation Fund. The Fund had now arrived at the amount of £235,000. Now, it was understood that this fund was to be established when the railways were run more or less at cost price, so as to obviate any fluctuation in’ railway rates; but he did think that as they were still running the railways at a large surplus, it was inadvisable to establish the Fund at the present time. In the Transvaal, when Union was contemplated, it was foreshadowed that there would be an immediate reduction in railway rates of £536,000 on a revenue of ten millions. Now, even allowing for a reduction in traffic, and allowing for expenditure on the basis of last year’s, he maintained that the railway rates should have been further reduced. From what the Minister of Railways said, he held out no hope of any reduction of rates during the coming year. That meant that two financial years had passed since Union without any further reductions of railway rates, and there had been a sum of £465,000, the greater portion of which, approximately, had (been distributed over the Cape Colony. He thought that those who lived further north would feel that they had a great grievance in that a further reduction of railway rates had not been made.

You want Kafirs.

The Minister of the Interior doesn’t know anything he is talking about. (Laughter.) He pointed out that the increase of white workers on the mines exceeded the whole number on the railways. He did hope that greater relief would be given to people up North by rate reductions, for that would lead to a reduction in the cost of living, and allow industries to be started.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

said he would like to know the meaning of this sudden move, because a number of members on his side wished to speak while the facts were still fresh in their minds. It was a matter of the finances after all, and he thought the debate should be continued.

said that the object of the adjournment was not to burke discussion, but simply to get on with certain other business.

said that there were some points which he wished to deal with, but if the debate were now adjourned, he would not have another opportunity of speaking. For that reason he hoped that the Minister would allow the debate to go on for at least another hour.

appealed to the Government to allow the debate to go on.

The motion was put and agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Friday.

moved that the new clause 6, ocean mails contract and discouragement of shipping combinations, be not inserted.

The hon. member votes against that. He can’t move it.

May I make a few remarks on the clause?

Yes; you are perfectly in order.

said that he opposed the clause on the ground that, to his mind, its inclusion would defeat the purpose for which it was inserted by the Minister. The Minister had said that the intention of the clause was to allow the Government to protect the general public in respect of shipping arrangements, and to arm himself in regard to the battle which he had declared against the shipping interests which were at present engaged in the trade of South Africa and against any other shipping interests that might contemplate entering the trade of South Africa. If the purpose of the Minister were to improve the conditions under which goods were conveyed both to and from this country, then the means he had chosen to effect his purpose would, contrary to his expectations, prove the very means which would defeat it. They had abundant evidence flowing in from all quarters of the Union to show that one of the most important factors in the trade of the country was stability of freights, and the only means so far devised for securing that was to make the shippers partners with the owners of the ships to prevent the incursion of vessels being put on by chance when opportunity served and taken off when the opportunity was not favourable, reducing the whole arrangement to absolute chaos. Unless some other means could be found, if the rebate system was so objectionable as pointed out, then the only effect of the Minister’s change would be to produce the very condition of chaos which the hon. member announced his intention to put an end to. What would be the inevitable effect of bringing about the change which the Minister proposed? The result would be that there would be no stability of freights. Freights would fluctuate not only from month to month, but from week to week, and even from hour to hour, and the consumer would have to pay to protect the merchant against these fluctuations. These were the reasons which led him to ask the House for a refusal to insert this clause.

said he desired to associate himself with the views expressed by the last speaker. In his opinion it was not part of the duty of the House to interfere between those people who shipped goods and those who conveyed them; except upon the clearest evidence of wrongdoing, and at the urgent call of those who had been wronged. He could not find any evidence whatever that this matter had been brought to the notice of the Union (Parliament, and it seemed to him that Parliament in this action had exceeded its jurisdiction. He was old enough to remember the, competition that formerly existed between the railway and the wagon in the earlier stages of the railway. It was decided afterwards that there should be no undue competition. The Governments then had done the same thing which the shipping companies had done, with the result that for many years goods had been carried, and passengers, too, at rates that were fair and’ reasonable, and with the greatest benefit to the country. What the Government, in his opinion, was doing was seeking to introduce ruinous competition, which would only cause chaos and disorder. (Hear, hear.)

said the one-sided and unfair statements made by the Minister in introducing this Bill fairly astounded hon. members when they had time to check his statements. This was simply an attack upon a particular shipping company. The Minister, in this particular clause 6, not content with the powers he had already received, sought for extraordinary powers. One of the main things that the Minister talked about when he introduced the Bill was the absence of competition and its injurious effects, but what he wanted to do now was really to make competition impossible. He, practically, Would say to the shipping company, in his wisdom—or unwisdom—to which he decided to give the contract, that no other company would be allowed to bring roods cheaper, or even as cheap, to South Africa, because he would be able to penalise them with heavy dock dues and differential railway rates. What was the use of going to the House with an argument of that sort? What chance was there of getting any competition Of any sort whatever? He would tell the Hon. the Minister that he (Mr. Quinn) was not prepared to trust this power in his hands. From the start he had made his position clear upon this question. He believed that they would get much better terms from the shipping companies, but how could they expect that if they told them they would not be allowed to compete?

said that most of the members did not understand this question, because it was really impossible to understand how a Minister could introduce such a clause in a Post Office Bill. He could not believe that that honourable House would pass a clause of this sort, without knowing more about it. He had received telegrams from produce-buyers’ associations on the subject. They all were unanimous in saying that stability of freights could be secured only under the rebate system. He would advise all hon. members interested in agriculture to pause before they gave the Government the powers it sought, for Otherwise they would suffer. The wool, produce, and and fruit exporters would find that their business would be upset for some time to come. But his principal objection was to Government attempting to attain its, end in such a roundabout system. There were other combines apart from the shipping one, and they should all be treated alike. (Cheers.) He strongly urged Government to consider the matter, for the thing had been thrust upon the country and rushed through the House without the country having a chance to consider the matter. The Royal Commission had reported that it was necessary to have stability of freights and regular sailings, and that it would not be wise to legislate on such matters as these. The Commission urged the shippers to try to come to terms with the shipowners. The Conference Lines, proceeded Mr. Henderson, were carrying mealies at a loss, which no other lines would do. (Hear, hear.)

said, supposing the Bill did not go through, what position would the Government be in? (Hear, hear.) The whole agitation had been worked up by a very small section. Some time ago a group of the Rand mines had an arrangement by which they obtained specially low freights, but that arrangement came to am end. Then one large merchant made a very good deal with a shipping company, but the unfortunate company lost a quarter off a million over him. (Laughter.) In the maize question these disappointed factions saw their opportunity. The great mistake was made by the late Sir Donald Currie in carrying maize at a non-paying rate. He could not conceive that the Minister in charge of the Bill would wilfully make the misstatements he did when he moved the second reading.

Name one misstatement.

I (blame the man who framed the measure for him. I do not believe he would wilfully mislead the House. Those misstatements were so monstrous that they were hardly credible. A grosser piece of log-rolling was never introduced into Parliament. Continuing, Mr. Searle said that in all the arguments that had been adduced, not one word of commendation had been said of the company which had served the country so well. The company did not put up freights during the war, nor did it send its ships into other trades during the depression. Rates had been reduced right along the line, and fertilisers and maize had been carried at non-paying freights. What would have been the outcry if, ten years ago, a measure like this had been introduced by the Transvaal Government? It would have been described as most autocratic and un-British like. The (Union Ministry would yet see that it had made a mistake. Two-thirds of the Port ‘Elizabeth people were in favour of the continuance of the present system. His colleague had quoted from a report of the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce of four years ago, but the feeling had changed since then.

No.

Well, he supposed the steam-roller would be used to carry this through, but as to carrying the mails, he could not say. (Laughter.) He was sorry the Bill had been introduced with the first Union Parliament, for he feared it would have a had effect.

said that when the previous speaker talked or log-rolling, he looked at him (Mr. Jagger). Well, all he could say was that he had nothing to do with initiating this matter, nor did he know any member outside the Government who had He had supported this legislation because he had always been opposed to this combination. Now, as to what had been said about the company not having increased the rates during the war, he would point out that luring the war the company were only carrying first-class freight, and second and third-class goods had to pay that rate. Then it was wrong, to his mind, to say that there had been no increase of rates during the last two or three years; there had been an increase by reason of goods being taken from one class and put in another. The hon. member for the Greyville division of Durban (Mr. Maydon) had pleaded for stability of rates. Well, it was convenient to the merchant to have stability of rates, but while they had stability of rates now, the rates were fixed at the highest point. The monopoly took care of that. As to the rebate system giving regularity of sailings, well, they had regular sailings before 1886, when the rebate came into existence, and in the American trade, where they had no rebate, they had regularity of sailings. The point was that the trade demanded regularity of sailings, and it was in the interests of this company to have it. It was not right to say that the small traders would be injured by this Bill. Recently the small traders of Cape Town held a meeting, and by a large majority passed a resolution in support of this. Besides, many small importers employed the same agent on the other side, and the agent, by sending the shipments together, was able to get the same terms as the larger importer got. Now, it had been said that they were making an attack on a particular company. Well, that was because that company was at the head and front of the combination. He rather thought the other companies in the combine would welcome this, for if the Bill went through the combination would go to pieces, and the other companies would be free to contract. There was no animosity or anything of that kind in his mind against any particular company. Having referred to clause 5, Mr. Jagger said that he would admit at once that they gave extraordinary powers to the Government under this Bill. But what was the position to-day? The combination had exactly the same powers to-day. They did as a matter of fact lay down that certain ships should carry from these ports and no other. (VOICES: No.) Let an Australian steamer come here and ask for cargo, and it would not get 6d. worth. There was no ship could carry cargo from (South Africa except with the consent of the Union-Castle Company. There was no ship could bring cargo here from Europe except with the consent of the same company. All that was done under the Bill was to give the same power to the Government. He thought they would be safer in leaving the control to their own Government, who were the creatures of the people, than they would be in the hands of the shipping combination.

said he almost thought they might come to a vote on this subject, because it had been very fully discussed. He should, however; like to say a word in reply to his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Jagger). They were usually agreed, but on this occasion they were as far apart as the two Poles. Which stuck to his principles was a different matter. His (Mr. Merriman’s) views were individualism and non-Government interference. His hon. friend in this case was entirely in favour of Government interference. That would lead to a multiplication of Government employees, and make the Government control the private business of people. He would leave the public to judge which stuck to his opinion in this matter. In his account of the Royal Commission the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) was not quite as fair as he usually was.

I quoted the minority report

But he said that the minority report was signed by the gentlemen who came out to South Africa.

Two of them.

Ah, but you said all of them. (VOICES: “No.”) That is what I understood, but I accept his statement. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Merriman went on to say that only two members of the Commission went round, and took evidence, and one of these signed the majority report. He confessed that he did not like the system of rebates. Every man who had bought meat in this country had suffered for years from the fact that he had to pay more for meat, because the thing had been organised, and the combine shut out the small competitor; but when the hon. member carried on his crusade against the ring, he (Mr. Merriman) did not join with him, because he thought these things were better left to settle themselves. He wanted to draw his hon. friend’s attention to another little matter. He was now in favour of Government. He trusted Governments. You could bring influence to bear upon Government. Yes, but had he ever considered what the railway in this country was like? He knew how the papers rang, and how many complaints there were, just as there were complaints against the shipping companies, of the iniquitous monopoly of the railway. They had crushed out the ox-wagon by precisely the same method as the steamship companies would like to crush out competition if they could. But they could not. He was sorry that his hon. friend had lapsed from grace. They had had his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) priding himself upon having got hold of the bookstalls. They might have a religious Minister, who would sell nothing but religious books. (Laughter.) Then they might have a Minister who would have some particular newspaper on the bookstalls.

That is the idea.

(continuing) said that the end would be that no man who made money in this country would be safe. That was the tendency of this Bill. He would be obliged to vote against if this went to a division. This was contrary to the principles that he professed. He had been opposed to the Government interfering in this matter. When they dealt with the mail contract they had nothing to do with the question of freight. If they carried that Bill they would have a state of confusion in South Africa, and strike a blow at British Commerce, because it was plain that the intention was to give the mail contract to a German company, because it was the only company that could afford to do it. He (believed this to be had legislation carried out in a vindictive spirit.

asked whether the Minister would see that these powers were used against any vessel and company who gave an advantage to one class of shippers as against another?

said he did not see how the Government could differentiate between the small shipper and the large one. He had been in business for thirty years, and he found that it paid him very well to say good-bye to the sailers, and to import by steamers even under the rebate system. It was a significant fact that since the Bill had been published, they had had had no enthusiastic support from any Chamber of Commerce in the country. If the members of Chambers of Commerce had felt very strongly on the matter, one would have thought that they would have come forward to support the Minister enthusiastically. The fact was that the terms of the Bill were not popular with the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country. He was glad that the Chamber in the town which he represented, had expressed an opinion on the Bill.

Yes, hut not against the Bill.

said that the Government encouraged combines. They had an instance of that that afternoon when a committee was appointed to inquire into the question of giving relief to the cooperative wineries. He was very much afraid that if no mail contract were entered into they would have chaos. He felt sure that the fruit and mealie industries were going to suffer very much indeed, because undoubtedly the freights which had been charged recently had been very low indeed. With regard to sub-section (a), clause 6, he certainly thought that the powers therein embodied were far too arbitrary. The Minister had said that even if the present combine continued to trade with South Africa without the rebate system, he would still have the power to surcharge at the clocks and on the railways goods which came by steamers belonging to the combine. He thought that was interfering with the liberty of the subject, and shippers at the other end would be placed in a most unenviable position, because, in entering into arrangements at the other end, they would not know whether the goods they sent were going to be surcharged or not.

said that he wished to ask the Minister two questions. The first was: did he not consider that clause 6 of the Bill was in direct conflict with clause 755 of the British Merchants’ Shipping Act of 1894? The second question was as to whether he did not consider that this Bill, under section 735 ef the British Merchants’ Shipping Act, would have to be reserved for Royal assent?

asked whether it was advisable now to discuss the question of the deletion of a sub section in clause 6, or whether it would be more proper to discuss the matter before the Speaker had put the question that the clause be incorporated? He asked the question, because he did not want to cover the same ground twice.

The question now before the Horse is the insertion of this clause moved into the Bill in committee. To give members an opportunity of voting upon the clause, I propose to put each sub-section separately.

said it seemed to him a very serious distinction had been overlooked. They appeared to be dealing with the wrong part. The real evil was not the rebate system, but the combination, and that did not enter into the question at all. From the Royal Commission’s report, it was evident that the rebate system was necessary in shipping, but what they ought to do was to give the Government power to deal with the shipping.

said he did not think they would be able to prevent the Union-Castle Company from securing the passenger traffic and the export trade of South Africa. He believed that the company could retain 55 per cent, of the trade in Mozambique, because the Mozambique Treaty would be a very strong weapon in their hands.

said the Government would not agree to the elimination of the clause. He had already stated that if a subsidy was not sufficient to induce new lines of steamers to come to South Africa, or the present contractors to decide for South Africa against the combination, the Government would have the power to differentiate at the docks or the railways. If one listened to the remarks of hon. members, and were opposed to the Bill, he could not help thinking that they were satisfied with the present contract, and would wish to see it (renewed. (Hear, hear.) Then it was stated that this should not have been dealt with in a Post Office Bill, but the Post Office were supporting a combination to which they were opposed, and unless something was done, then the trade would remain in the hands of people who were only responsible to their shareholders, and not to the people of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) It was said that two-thirds of the people at Port Elizabeth were opposed to this Bill. Well, he would read some communications from Chambers of Commerce who supported the Government. The Chambers of Commerce of Cape Town and Maritzburg had written stating that they were in favour of the abolition of rebates. Durban and Germiston were also against the rebate system. Those gentlemen who spoke in favour of the rebate system must know that there was a large body of commercial men who supported this measure. If any hon. member had any doubt as to whether a combination of shipowners which gave rebates was detrimental to the best interests of the countries concerned, he would quote a few figures showing what had happened in the case of the Straits Settlement. Before there was a shipping combination there the freight on tin was 5s. to 10s. a ten; after the combination it was 27s. 6d. to 52s 6d. Other instances were: Sago, 6s. 3d. to 20s., raised to a steady freight of 27s. 6d.; rattans 6s. 3d to 20s., increased to 32s. 6d.; and rubber, 6s. 3d. to 22s. 6d. raised to 40s. Steady freights meant top freights. Hobart was 11,600 miles from England, and apples and plums were conveyed between those two places at 57s. 6d. a ton, whereas from Cape Town to England—a distance of 5; 900 miles —the charge was 55s. to 60s. a ton. It had been said that misstatements had been made by him, but be would be very sorry if he had quoted any figure which could not be substantiated. He had had his figures checked, but had not found one misstatement. He had, however, found a misstatement by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The right hon. gentleman had said that this country did not pay the mail company any subsidy, but only made a payment for services rendered, which were carried out very cheaply, and that if we paid the ordinary freight for the conveyance of mails we should pay more than we did now. Now, it would cost this country £31,500 for the mails if they paid the freight rates, whereas the Government now paid a subsidy of £ 150,000, plus £21,000 for the Natal connection. So that, so far from the Government paying less than they would if they paid freight rates, they were paying £139,500 more for the regularity of sailings. He would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Merriman) whether his constituents were satisfied to pay 19s. 1d. per ton of 40 cubic feet measurement for their wool to be taken to the London market, against 9s. to 11s. paid by the Argentine farmer for the same service?

By weight?

No; by measurement. I know what I am talking about. Continuing, he said he was prepared to support these and the other figures he had given. He did not think there was any need to go over the whole ground again. The intention of the Government was not only to get a good mail contract, but to see that the rates were so arranged that the industries of this country should not be at the mercy of a shipping combine. He would urge that the Government should be given as much power as possible so as to show the Combine it was futile to fight. Then the chances were that the combine would come to reasonable terms He hoped hon. members would see the wisdom of coming to a vote on this clause, and indeed on the whole Bill. If they wished to effect an alteration to what had existed in the past, now was the time to do it. (Hear, hear.)

said that he would put the sub-sections separately. He proceeded to put sub-section (1).

The “Ayes” were declared to have it.

called for a division.

said that there was no need to divide on every portion of the clause if the whole clause were put afterwards.

said that he would put the sub-sections, and, if any amendment were agreed upon, he would put the whole clause afterwards.

withdrew his requisition for a division.

The sub-section was agreed to.

then put sub-section 2.

moved to delete (b).

ruled the hon. member out of order.

The “Ayes” were declared to have it.

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

moved the following proviso: “Provided that no such differentiation shall exceed in all such sum as shell make the total charges on such goods as aforesaid equal to the minimum charges from time to time payable on similar goods carried in ships owned or chartered by such persons with whom the Government may contract.”

seconded.

The proviso was negatived.

Sub-section (4) was agreed to.

Clause 67 was amended, “Minister of Finance” being substituted for “Treasury. ”

Clause 110 was verbally amended.

On new clause 122,

said that to-day people who exported ostrich feathers and gold under arrangement with the shipping companies were entitled to certain rebates, if they did not ship by any other line. He would like to ask whether those shippers would be entitled to claim from the shipping companies such rebate as they would afterwards be entitled to. Would the companies claim that the terms of the contract had not been fulfilled, and that they could retain the rebates which would otherwise be payable?

said that he could only give his own opinion, which was that the shippers would be in a position to recover such rebates. Continuing, he said that he had been advised by a very high authority that shippers would” be entitled to recover their rebate.

In clause 3,

The word “such” was omitted.

moved that after “department,” in the first paragraph, to insert “provided that no contract shall be entered into for the conveyance of postal articles oversea, except in ships sailing under the British flag.”

seconded.

said he had hoped that this would have been accepted, and he was encouraged, because, on the second reading, the Treasurer said he (Mr. Quinn) should put it before the House. But he saw no sign of assent on the face of the Minister in Charge of the Bill, and so he decided to proceed with the amendment. He had not been told authoritatively, but he understood that the Minister refused to accept the amendment. He asked the Minister if he would accept the amendment, because if he did, he (the speaker) would not take up the time of the House. At any rate, he felt sure he could count on the support of the Treasurer, though he had left his plaice. (Laughter.) Would the Minister accept the amendment?

No.

said that this question came before the old Cape House of Assembly in 1899. He had a White-book giving the correspondence which passed between the Treasurer of the Cape Colony, as it was then, and the Imperial Post Office authorities. The Agent-General for the Cape, in a letter to the Imperial Post Office authorities, said: “Mr. Merriman desires me to express his extreme surprise at the objection taken by the Secretary to the Imperial Post Office to the clause in the conditions limiting the competition to British - owned and British-built ships. In these days of profuse expression of zeal for the ‘Imperial’ idea— ”

Hear, bear.

“As evinced by penny post, All British Merchandise Marks Acts, and so forth, it is scarcely necessary to point out that the command of important mail routes by the British mercantile marine, is of far more importance than the exclusion of a few articles of foreign manufacture. It was in this spirit that the Cape Parliament, without one dissentient voice, agreed to this provision, and for this reason the clause will be insisted upon; for Mr. Merriman scarcely, supposed that Sir Spencer Walpole seriously proposed to allow foreign competition with a view of extorting a more favourable contract from British owners, but with no idea of concluding a contract with the foreigners, however favour able their terms.” What he really wanted to know was what could really be the reason for refusing amendments?

Give the Germans a chance.

said that six-tenths of the shipping of the world sailed under the British flag. Everything was in favour of the inclusion of this amendment. If the Minister refused to accept this amendment, it would only drive some of them to the conclusion that the real object in rejecting this amendment had not been told.

You won’t let go your monopolies.

If the hon. member wants to talk about monopolies, then he should ask the Hon. the Minister to give him his opinion upon that point. The Minister had produced a number of figures, which no one would check or contradict. He referred to a witness before the Commission that sat in Cape Town, who said that the cost of taking mineral water from. Cape Town to Durban was £5 13s. 2d. per ton, whereas the imported article could be landed for £3 5s. per ton. By quoting them, he took it that the Minister gave the figures his official approval. Included in the sum mentioned were the freights on the empty bottles from England to Cape Town, dock charges in Cape Town, railway charges to and from Bellville, and freight from Cape Town to Durban, so that the quotation of £3 13s. 2d. was altogether misleading. That was the kind of thing he complained of so bitterly; it was not fair.

Are these remarks relative to clause 5?

I bow to your judgment with pleasure, but I was challenged to give figures.

who seconded, said the House would remember that when the Bill was being considered in its earlier stages, the Minister conveyed the impression that he would not contract with any but a British line. Did, or did he not, say so? Assuming for a moment that the mail contract was given to a foreign line, say, a German line, and war was to break out between England and Germany—what would happen? Would not that German ship, in order to place our despatches in the hands of the enemy, surrender to the first German man-o’-war She met?

supported the amendment, and gave an instance to show how easy it was by means of wireless telegraphy, to mobilise a man-o’-war.

said he did not think the amendment covered the ground at all. He had drafted a new clause, but he added that he was quite content to let the matter go in terms of the amendment submitted by Mr. Quinn.

asked whether any contract entered into for the carriage of mails by sea would be submitted to the House?

said that that was not the question before the House.

said that, in reference to what the hon. member for Troyeville said in regard to what had been stated by the Minister of Finance, he understood that the hon. member was opposing the Bill, and particularly that clause in regard to a German line of steamers possibly taking this contract. The Minister then said:” Frame a clause to that effect, and I will accept it.” The hon. member, however, did not take any notice, but he continued his opposition to the Bill to the last moment. When the Minister of Finance said he would be prepared to accept the clause, he was not aware of what had taken place when the present contract was entered into. Continuing, he said that when the advertisement calling for tenders appeared in 1898, there was a clause that the ships to be employed in the conveyance of mails should be British owned, built and registered either in the United Kingdom or the colonies. The Postmaster-General in England criticised the advertisement, saying that it had been found impolitic to insert such a clause in Imperial mail traffic contracts, that it “narrows the field of competition,” that it had been held that the “true market value of a service can, be better ascertained by allowing foreign-owned Ships to compete,” and that the Postmaster-General certainly advised the deletion of the clause. In view of this, continued the speaker, it was thought advisable to ascertain the opinion held at present. He might say that they had communications from the authorities in England that they certainly held the same opinion on the subject. That being so, it would not be politic for the Government to insert such a clause in the Bill, in view of the opinion expressed at the present time. The Imperial Post Office desired to be consulted during every stage in that matter, and he took it that the English Post Office would be just as little inclined to give the contract to a foreign line as that Government; and, that being so, he failed to see why the hon. gentleman should be so greatly concerned. The Government were as much alive to the British connection as the hon. gentleman—only perhaps more so. He was not so sure that if a clause of that sort was actually put into the Bill, it would not be going contrary to their treaties; and he would not be so sure whether the Bill would be sanctioned if there was such a clause in the Bill, so that he could not accept that amendment.

It would not be judicious to accept the amendment, and the Government had, therefore, decided to resist it.

I want to say one word—the Minister, in giving that correspondence, has given only part of it.

I said I only read part.

I am going on with the rest of the story. When that communication with the Post Office was received, the latter part of which my hon. friend quoted, I drew attention in the strongest terms to the absurd position taken up by the British Post Office authorities—that we should call fishing tenders from foreign tenderers, and then not accept them; and that we did not for a moment entertain putting the mails and the passenger services of this country in the hands of the foreigner. I drew attention to it in the strongest terms. That closed the correspondence for a time. It leaked out in England; in fact, I took pains that it should leak out. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the Secretary of the Post Office had telegraphed it in March, and this was what the Minister had not read to the House: “It is represented to the Government that the Cape Ministers are determined not to invite foreigners to tender for the mail contract. There is apparently some misunderstanding, and the Duke of Norfolk (the then Postmaster-General) hoped that nothing will be done until the matter has been discussed, and further communications have been sent.” They got into a fright, added Mr. Merriman, and they knew very well that if they put that out, it would be a cry on every platform that they were encouraging foreign trade. He wished to say again, he continued, that he had not departed one jot from the position he took up in 1899. He thought it would be a sin to the country to hold out any hopes of foreign ships carrying the mails. He was not what was commonly known as an Imperialist; but he did believe that one of the most important means of keeping their connection with England was by seeing that the mails were carried in British bottoms only. He must, therefore, vote for the amendment.

said that he wished to point out to the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) that the Government had received a telegram from the Imperial Government that day, stating that the Postmaster-General still held to the opinion expressed in 1898. He asked them to trust the British Government.

said that it was unfortunate the Minister could not see his way to accept the amendment. It was also unfortunate that they had not got more information before them as to the attitude of the Imperial authorities. As far as he understood, the Minister told them that the reason the Government considered that these tenders should be open to foreigners was to enable them to get the best market prices. If it were the intention of the Government not to give tenders to any foreign Power, then these foreign Powers would not tender. He wondered if the Imperial Postmaster-General’s views coincided, with the views of the Foreign and Colonial Secretaries, and he would like to know if any communication had been received upon that point. It was perhaps unfortunate that this amendment had come from an opponent of the Bill, and the suggestion that there might be something behind this opposition to the amendment added to the difficulty of the situation. If the Government had such strong reasons for the non-acceptance of this amendment, then he thought they ought to disclose them.

hoped the Prime Minister would make a statement. He would, like to add a proviso to the effect that any contract entered into should be subject to the approval of Parliament. That would be a further safeguard, and his hon. friend might accept that.

said that he regretted that that matter had now been raised; and he thought that the amendment was quite unnecessary. What they wanted was a condition of affaire which would build up the country, and the Mother Country would help them to do so. There was no intention of placing the contract in the hands of foreign shipowners. It would not do however to bolster up a monopoly for the sake of a few shareholders who, for all they knew, might be foreigners. If they wanted to agree to such an amendment they might as well delete clause 5 altogether. They might as well enter into an agreement with the existing company, but what they wanted was to get the best possible terms for South Africa. They wanted an open market, and the Imperial Government would be a party to any agreement which would be entered into. If it would please hon. members opposite, he would give the assurance that any contract which would be entered into would be laid on the table of the House, and would be subject to the ratification of both Houses of Parliament. British interests would be completely safeguarded.

said it would be recognised that any assistance the Opposition had been able to give the Government in regard to the Bill had been willingly given. They were as anxious as the Government that the present condition of things should be broken down, and that there should be no combination of shipowners. They were anxious to come to some sort of arrangement. Would the Government not agree to report progress, and let the Opposition consult with the Government to see whether some arrangement could become to? He understood that no contract would be entered into until it had been laid before Parliament for its approval. Would Government agree that a clause to that effect be put in the Bill? (Hear, hear.) He thought it was in the interests of the Government that a motion to report progress should be accepted. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

hoped the motion would be withdrawn, as they desired to get the Bill through the House.

said that he had an amendment which would meet the views expressed, viz., to insert in clause 6, after” South Africa,” the words, “but every such contract shall be subject to ratification by both Houses of Parliament.”

said he did not think they would, gain anything by trying to force the position at that stage. It was not fair to make this a test of one’s loyalty. He believed that Parliament was the best security they had got. Their business was to see that they were masters in their own house; the question of Imperial trade could be decided when the contract came before the House.

said that if this went to a division, some of them would be placed in a difficult position.

Why?

said that he accepted the assurance of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. He did not wish to see his vote interpreted as mistrust. If this was not put in the Bill in order to extend the field of competition, he thought it a piece of unworthy bluff.

asked why Parliament should not decide now with the advantage that when the contract—

The hon. member is travelling beyond the question.

said he would like to support what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The Minister of Railways had said: Trust the British Government. Well, be (the speaker) agreed with him, but there wa3 Responsible Government in this country, and it was for the Parliament here to decide what it thought was best. He hoped the matter would be adjourned.

said that they could go no further that night, as no proviso could be moved to the clause, so he supported the motion for the adjournment. It should be clear, beyond all possible doubt, that the contract should be given to British ships, or if such a clause could not be put in, that the contract would be laid before Parliament and would have to be ratified by Parliament. He had supported the Government so far, as he was against the system of rebates, but unless such an assurance were given he must vote for Mr. Quinn’s amendment.

The motion for the adjournment was negatived.

Mr. Quinn’s motion was put, and

declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

moved the insertion of a new clause, providing that every contract entered into for the conveyance of postal articles to and from the Union beyond the limits of South Africa should be subject to ratification by both Houses of Parliament.

seconded.

moved the adjournment of the debate in order to give Mr. Sauer an opportunity of saying whether he had read the whole of the communication or not.

seconded.

The motion for the adjournment was negatived.

The new clause was agreed to.

In clause 36,

moved: In line 28, to omit the words “shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine” and substitute “!he or the agent shall incur a penalty,” and in line 29, after “pounds,” to insert “which shall be recoverable by action in any competent court.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

In clause 78,

moved: To omit all the words from the commencement of subsection (a) to “private” in line 50 and to substitute “The owners of any”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

In clause 122.

moved: After “Post Office” to insert “Administration and shipping combinations discouragement.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

In the first schedule,

moved: In line 21 of “Extent of Repeal” column, to omit “686” and to substitute “626”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the Bill be now read a third time.

objected.

The Bill was set down for third reading to-morrow.