from residents of Mafeking, for construction of a railway from Buhrmansdrift to Ottoshoop and Zeerust.

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

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

from the Mohammedan Benefit Society of Cape Town, against restriction of licences, and the system of permits issued to Indians.

from C. Wiltshire, formerly of Royal Marine Light Infantry.

Evidence. Mining Regulations Commission (Transvaal).

Proposed Stamp Duties compared with the existing tariffs.

moved: That the Minister of Commerce and Industries (Colonel Leuchars) he discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Diseases of Stock Bill, and that Mr. Clay ton be appointed in his stead.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee on Railways and Harbours be appointed, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Sir Thomas Smartt, Mr. Jagger, Sir George Farrar, Sir David Hunter, Messrs. P. G. W. Grobler, H. S. Theron, Fichardt, Madeley, and the mover.

seconded.

asked what the duties of the committee would be?

said he had adopted here the procedure followed in the Cape when a Select Committee on Railways was appointed. Usually the report of the General Manager of Railways was submitted to the committee, and also any other matters which the House from time to time might direct. He had found that experience on the committee enabled members to get a much better grasp of railway affairs than otherwise would be possible.

moved that the committee consist of ten members.

seconded.

said he was considering the question of enlarging the committee, and if he decided to do so, he would give notice to-morrow.

The amendment was negatived, and the original motion agreed to.

moved to add at the end: “Provided, however, that in case of the death of any officer his family shall not be required to quit the premises aforesaid until at least fourteen days have expired from the date of such officer’s death.”

seconded.

said he was sorry that he could not accept this, in view of the facts. He would suggest that under the circumstances the hon. member should leave the matter as it was.

said that when the matter was under discussion the point was raised that these unfortunate women whose husbands had died would not be hurried out of their premises. Under the circumstances he was not prepared to withdraw the proviso.

The proviso was negatived.

On clause 53,

put the amendment in lines 22 and 23.

moved, seconded by Mr. H. A. OLIVER (Kimberley): To insert the words “or in the alternative may sentence him to imprisonment” after “five years” in line 23.

Agreed to.

On clause 72,

put the new proviso, viz.: “Provided further that no solitary imprisonment shall be inflicted for more than ten days.”

moved, as an amendment, seconded by Mr. C. J. KRIGE (Caledon): To omit “solitary confinement shall be inflicted for more than ten days,” and to substitute “sentence of solitary confinement exceeding ten days shall be imposed.”

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On clause 97,

moved in line 24 to insert “provided the cause of action has come to the notice of the party complaining within that period, but in no case shall any such action be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date of the act or omission complained of.”

seconded.

said he was prepared to accept the amendment, but it should come in line 36.

agreed to the alteration.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved the following new clause to follow clause 97: “Nothing in this Act contained shall in any way affect the rights which any subordinate officer or his dependents may have to claim compensation under any law governing compensation or damages to workmen injured or dying from any accident arising out of or in the course of their employment, land the amount payable under any such law shall not be reduced by reason of any payment that may be made under this Act, provided, however, that the liability and responsibility of the Government towards its subordinate officers shall be decided in the same manner land be the same as that of employer and employee as laid down, defined, and limited in the Workman’s Compensation Act No. 36 of 1907 of the Transvaal Province, and any amendment thereof or any law passed in substitution therefor, anything ‘to the contrary contained in any law of any of the other Provinces of the Union notwithstanding.”

said he was not prepared to accept this.

In that case I will not press the matter now.

The Bill was adopted with amendments, and the third reading set down for Wednesday next.

moved to insert the following: “and after consultation with the local authority if any.”

seconded.

asked if that amendment was hot now going too far the other way?

General Stmuts’s amendment was carried.

The other amendments were agreed to.

Any other amendments?

There is another ordinance, before the very last reference, to be inserted:“Ordinance 13 of 1905, section 5, to be repealed.”

The amendment was carried.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted.

said that there was nothing contentious about the Bill, which was one to consolidate the various Acts dealing with the Post Office. He might say that at present there were 51 Acts dealing with it, and it had been suggested to consolidate the various Acts obtaining at present in the Union, or rather in the different colonies. As the Post Office was essentially a Union department, it was necessary to consolidate the Acts, and have one Act for the administration of the department. He might say that wherever there had been a difference between the Acts in the different colonies, they had selected the Act most favourable towards the public, so that when that Act became law it would be of great convenience to the country generally. All the different clauses, with the exception of a few conditional clauses, were contained in one or other of the Acts of the different colonies at present. There was clause 170 (Government liability), which had been drafted in such a way that in future if something happened similar to what had happened in the Kimberley case, referred to by the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) some time ago, the Government would accept responsibility. (Hear, hear.)

The distance is about the same.

Argentina is situated about the same distance from the United Kingdom as South Africa is from the United Kingdom. Proceeding, he said the rate per ton on skins and hides from the Argentine to London was 22s. 6d., as compared with 70s. from Cape Town to London. In other words, three times as much was charged in the case of South Africa as in the ease of the Argentine. In the cases he had quoted, hon. members would see that the rates from Melbourne only exceeded the Cape Town rates, varying from 6d. to-7-s. per ton. That was striking enough, but there were some more extraordinary rates. He took the case of bicycles. Bicycles shipped from the United Kingdom to Africa were conveyed at 42s. 6d., but if they were taken on to Australia, they were only charged 37s. Hon. members would see that the charges were actually less to Australia than to South Africa. In the case of earthenware, the rate to Cape Town was 30s., as compared with 37s. 6d. to Melbourne, and in the case of motor-cars, it was cheaper to take them 12,000 miles than it was to take them 6,000 miles. The rate to Cape Town was 42s. 6d.,. and the rate to Melbourne was 37s. It was also, cheaper to convey pianos to Melbourne than it was to convey them to South Africa. To Cape Town the rate was 42s. 6d., and to Melbourne 34s. 6d. Then there were similar anomalies existing in connection with the passenger rates; he took the third class because two-thirds of the people coming to South Africa travelled third class, and he found that the average third-class fare to South Africa was 16 guineas. On the other hand, they could go from London to Melbourne for £17, or twice the distance for 4s. more. When he was in the Argentine he saw almost every steamer filled with farm labourers, who went there just for the season. They went there at a cheap rate—for something between £7 or £8. They returned when the season was over, and the chances were that the following year they went back again. He thought it might solve a good deal of our labour question in this country if the British workman could get out here and back for a reasonable fare for the season; he would get to know more about South Africa, and would be able to take money back with him. But the amount that was charged to him now for coming out here for a season was altogether out of reason. The comparisons he had given showed how considerably this country was prejudiced in the matter of freights as well as of passenger rates Now, as this combination so largely controlled the trade of this country, it became a matter of grave importance to the Government, because the combination was in a position, if it thought proper, to throttle any young industry started here.

Is that the minority or the majority report?

The majority

proceeding, said that on page 80, the Royal Commission said that: “ In the case of the South African Shipping Conference grievances of a substantial character had been experienced.” On page 81 they said that “the complaints made with regard to the operation of the South African Conference have been more numerous and more substantial than those made with regard to any other Conference, and it is not surprising to find that there is a considerable body of opinion in South Africa desirous of abolishing what is regarded as the keystone of the Conference —the system of deferred rebates.” Thus hon. members would see that this Conference referred to by the Royal Commission stood condemned by the tribunal to which they had themselves appealed.

They did not recommend that.

I was reading from the report of the Sub-Commission of the Royal Commission.

They did not recommend that.

Those are the recommendations of the Royal Commission—the hon. member can read them for himself. (Hear, hear.) At any rate, we intend to make use of Government influence. Proceeding, he said that it would not help them very much to legislate against rebates in this country, for their legislation would not extend beyond the jurisdiction of their Courts, for, judging from what took place in the Royal Commission, he did not think it was likely that legislation would be introduced on the other side, and a large amount of this rebate was paid out on the other side.

said he had tried to work out some of the possibilities which would ensue if the House adopted the policy laid down by the Minister. There were provisions in the Bill which rendered outsiders liable to penalties under the Post Office Act, which did not apply if the same offences were committed by officers of the State. In reading clause 6, it appeared to him that instead of allowing the outside public to have remedies against the Government in the event of certain offences being committed by officers of the State, this clause debarred the officer concerned from being fined or the Government suffering from any penalty. There was also an entire absence of any safeguard in the event of intentional delay of the delivery of letters by any officer of the department, although if the delay were occasioned by a contractor carrying mails, the contractor had to pay penalties to the Government. That seemed to present anomalies which ought to be remedied before the Bill became law. They now came to the main contention under clause 5, which dealt with one of the largest commercial problems of the generation (Hear, hear.) The Bill made provision for preventing the continuance of a practice which had had to be adopted in the interests of the shipping world. It was not by any means so simple a problem as one would gather from having listened to the words of the mover. (Cheers.) The main point to be considered was whether any country could secure a high-class shipping service without paying amply for it. The first problem of stability was that regular ships engaged in traffic of this kind should not be submitted to an irruption of competitors from time to time which unsettled the ordinary rates. In all these freight wars it was not the ordinary consumer that benefited, but those powerful merchants who had been able to import their goods at a cheaper rate. If the Government desired to alter things, and to bring here anything better, which they thought would be more advantageous to South Africa, surely it would be best to leave this innovation as little fettered as possible. It was in their knowledge that some of these shipping lines had come to grief. One of the richest had practically lost the capital brought in by the original founder into that service. Nor in one single instance was the cause set down to mismanagement. The Minister had said that the country bad paid far more for services rendered by these Conference lines, yet they were continually being told that some of these lines were doing an unprofitable trade. Could they then, expect to have such a very large reduction in freight under these circumstances? Comparison had also been drawn between the rates that prevailed to Australia, but there was clearly a difference there. It was also perfectly true that in the United States of America it was quite possible that a higher railway rate was charged for short distances as against longer distances, because of the larger centres. It was a fact that they could carry a much greater distance at a lower irate, provided that there were other advantages as against that lower rate. Another point which he did not think had been considered, and it particularly referred to the Bill itself, and that was: what would be the effect of the passing of the Bill, seeing that it affected the largest and most vital interests of Great Britain? Were they assured that this Bill would receive the sanction of the Home Government? If they looked up the correspondence that passed between the Home Government and the Australasian Government, they would see the attitude that had been taken up in reference to these questions that vitally affected the Empire. In Australia, by the Act of Constitution, special provision was made by the Parliament of Australia for making legislation in regard to shipping matters, and if that was so, it must apply at least with equal force to the Union of South Africa. Now, he was by no means speaking to deprecate such action as might be found beneficial to South Africa. He wanted the Government, in any action which it was to take in regard to that matter, to take lit with the deepest sense the responsibility, and to be careful to take no false step in regard to it. If they were to benefit the country, it could not be, in the first place, by debarring the Government from taking the fullest and freest action in regard to the contracts which the Government itself thought fit to make. Let the Government lay down for itself whatever costs, whatever conditions it considered necessary to secure the greatest benefit to itself, hut let it stay its hand in regard to those negotiations. Secondly, he wanted the Government to consider whether it was at all possible to procure confidence into the trade of this country, where that service was debarred from protecting itself, as he thought it would be by clause 5, from competition of an intermittent nature, which would reduce the terms of that contract to a negligible quantity. The third point was: Had the Government fully considered the relations in regard to Home shipping, and the Imperial Government with regard to Home shipping in imposing such far-reaching meausures or conditions as those which appeared, and especially were advocated by the Minister?

said that there were one or two points referred to by the honourable member who had just spoken which he wanted to reply to. The hon. member had asked in what country where there was shipping there were no rebates. His honourable friend must know perfectly well that in the trade between Europe and the United States of America there was no rebate at all and in the trade of the coasts of Great Britain (?) there was no rebate at all. These trades were well conducted, and there was no better service in the world than between that of Great Britain and the United States of America, the ships sailing at set dates and keeping to these dates. Yet, that shipping service was maintained without rebates, land it was a very high-class service indeed. They in South Africa considered that they paid more amply than they Should for the service they had got, and he thought that the figures quoted by the Minister, showing the little difference there was in the rates charged for six thousand miles and twelve thousand miles, proved that. Many of these shins going to Australia had to pay canal dues when, going through the Suez Canal, and had to pay six shillings to eight shillings a ton. He was really astonished at his hon. friend (the member for Durban, Greyville) saying that they carried freight at greater distances for a little extra. The distance between Cape Town and Durban was not so much as to Australia. And what was the difference? The hon. member quoted the rates for first class and second class goods to Gape Town and Durban, and added that he thought that that difference alone would be enough to condemn his hon. friends argument, If it was three pence only, he could understand it; but why should there be that immense difference in regard to Durban? His hon. friend had said that none of the Conference lines had had a prosperous career. Well, so far as they could learn, the Union-Castle Line and the Clan Line had had a prosperous career, and the Ellerman Harrison Line had had to pay a large sum of money to get into the combine. It was reported that £60,000 had had to be paid. They would not have paid that sum in cash unless they thought it was a good and prosperous trade. As to what the hon. member had said about the shipping of Great Britain, he (Mr. Jagger) knew perfectly well that that matter was of vital interest to the shipping trade of Great Britain. (Did his honourable friend know that these rings and combines did an immense amount of damage to the shipping interests of Great Britain? (Hear, hear.) They had two, classes of steamships—the liner and the tramp steamier, and, strange as it might appear, the greatest tonnage of Great Britain was in tramp steamers, and most of the tramp steamers in the world were owned by Great Britain, and comparatively very few of them were owned by foreign countries.

Manned by whom?

said that that was really not the point at all. The point was, that they were British owned steamers. That combination, as his honourable friend had himself shown, and as had been pointed out by the Minister in his speech, was altogether against the tramp steamer, and it was because they wanted to keep out the tramp, steamers that they had combined. What had been the result? In some cases the result had been to drive out the tramp steamier and bring in the foreign, steamer. They would find out that in the Straits Settlements that was exactly what had occurred. He remembered the time, when he had first got into the trade, that there were no foreign steamers here. What was the result now? They had foreign steamers coming to South Africa, and these foreign lines, assisted by their own Governments, could force their way in. The tramp steamers could not. He did not think, therefore, that the British Government would have anything to say against that Bill, and he thought that the Bill was in the interests of British shipping, and that it was in the interests of British shipping that that combine should be broken down. He had often said in the Chamber of Commerce that the present state of affairs had been an intolerable one in South Africa. They had been trying to fight it since 1876. Sir John Molteno had, An his first contract, tried to get some provision put in which would maintain competition between the Union Line and the Castle Line, but, unfortunately. He was not strong enough to carry it out. To-day the highway of traffic was under the control of a ring of shipping owners, who were in a position to say who should bring goods to South Africa, and who should take them, away. As a rule, every shipper had 12 months’ rebate outstanding, and; he could not afford to lose that. He knew a shipper who had had a small parcel sent out to him—a sample which had come out by a steamship belonging to the Chargeurs Reunis—which did not happen to be a Conference steamier, and he was threatened with having his rebates forfeited. That gentleman had had to eat very humble pie indeed before they returned his rebates. He had also had it from a friend in the city that a parcel was sent out to him—also without his knowledge—and they also threatened to sacrifice his rebate. The export trade was in exactly the same position. If a man wanted to send a cargo of mealies, for example, to Havre, Antwerp, or Bremen, he must first get the consent of the Union-Castle Company. The same applied to the United States of America, A ease had occurred within the last few months, he believed, where a certain line wanted to start from here to the United States of America. They came from Australia, and after calling bane went right on to America —the Elder-Dempster Line combined with the German-Australian Line. The combination would not allow them to do it and, as a matter of fact, they did not do it to-day. He had no doubt that hon. members who were business men would, easily understand that had that line been allowed to start and to carry cargo freely they would have developed a good market for some of South Africa’s products in the United States of America. The merchants would have exerted themselves to find a market on the other side of the water. Now they had to go to Southampton first. Then he took the trade of Mauritius. It appeared that they charged 15s. per ton for oats to Mauritius, and that the amount of cargo must not be less than 100 tons. If it was less the charge was 17s. 6d. The ships of the Ring bad to go to Mauritius for sugar, and, notwithstanding that, they tried to make out that it was with favour that they carried oats at 15s. per ton. Then, again, he took the coastwise trade. They were entirely in their hands as regards that trade. Two steamers ran up the coast to, fetch, coal from Natal. Naturally it would pay them to carry cargo, up there. But, no; they were debarred. They were sent up to Natal empty, and came down with coal at the best possible rates. Then, again, dozens of the Australian ships passed this port during the year, and they dared not bring am ounce of cargo to Cape Town or even to any South African port. There was no question about it that there was any amount of cargo for these ships to take on the homeward journey, but they were not allowed to carry a single ounce. They had spent something like one and a quarter million pounds in improvements at Cape Town Docks, and had given the shipping companies other facilities, and he said advisedly that to his mind the men who benefited most by all this expenditure of money were the shipping companies that traded here. That they had cheapened the work there was no question. The handling of coal was done cheaper and more expeditiously than in former years. Of course, they had to find the interest. The merchants were heavily mulcted as regards delivery charges. But when they called upon the shipping combination to pay same share, they declined absolutely, and when the Harbour Board forced the combination to pay, the cambine put up their charges 21/2 per cent. The rate for Cape Town, therefore, was actually 21/2 per cent. more than it was for Delagoa Bay. He only mentioned that to show the power which the combination had got into their hands. They had tried their bast; they had approached the Government, but absolutely nothing was done. Well, he wanted to point out the enormously-improved position shipping companies now enjoved in regard to dock accommodation and such like. The mail steamers paid less to-day than they did twelve years ago. There was no question that the despatch was beyond comparison. It was far and away better than it was twelve years ago. Then there was an advantage in the matter of coal. There was also a saving in water. They had reduced the water charges to the shipping companies, and these alone meant a saving of £5,000. It had been said over and over again that there was no return cargo. The question of no return cargo had always been complained of, but it was pretty well known to all that such a state of affairs had changed to an enormous extent. There was far more cargo nowadays. For instance, the trade had increased in wool, hides, skins, mohair, and feathers. There was no question about that, and yet they had not got any reduction in the homeward freights. The freights he said quite advisedly, were practically higher to-day than they were 12 years ago. He did not want to go into comparisons regarding the rates charged between Great Britain and South Africa, and the rates between Great Britain and Australia. The Minister had already dealt with that subject; but there was another point he wanted to bring out, and that was with regard to regular sailings. (Well, the regular sailings were not given on account of the Ring. Regular sailings came owing to the demand of trade. People shipped their goods on certain days. They liked to ship on a given day because then they knew exactly when the steamer sailed, and if that were not done they would get other Ships to do so. The demand of trade would always compel that to be done. There was not the slightest doubt about that. As regards the mails, it was said that there would be great irregularity both from, this side and from the other side. He thought that such fears were greatly exaggerated. The only way in which they would suffer was that it was quite possible that ships might he longer on the voyage. They might take 19 instead of 17 days. He agreed with the Minister that the Government had every right to interfere in this matter. It was nothing else than a monopoly. He knew he did not like the word “monopoly.” They used the word “conference,” and they simply contended that they met for discussion, and so forth, but everybody knew from long experience that it was nothing but a monopoly. And, of course, so long as they were assisted by the Government it naturally placed them in a very much stronger position. If it were granted that this was a monopoly, then he maintained the State had every right to interfere, and a further fact that gave an increased right was the fact that they controlled the highway between this country and Great Britain. Let them take the railways of the United States of America. Of course, they were run by private capital, but it had been admitted that wherever a monopoly or a public service existed the State had a perfect right to interfere. The United States had passed a law under which the right to regulate railway rates was given to a Commission, and only recently that right had been exercised. This was a monopoly in which the Government had the right to intervene, and on the grounds he had given he maintained that the Government had the right to step in and protect the public interest. Therefore, he, for one, would certainly cordially support the Bill.

said that of course he would support the second reading of the Bill. Indeed, he did not see how anybody could help voting for the second reading, because, excepting for one or two noxious clauses, it seemed to him to be a perfectly harmless and necessary Bill. Now, there was one clause, clause 117, which he should like every member to read carefully through, in face of the declaration by his honourable friend the Baronet, to see whether it bore quite the meaning that the hon. Baronet gave it. He (Mr. Merriman) thought it would take a very clever man to tell him what was going to happen under that clause. He recommended some of his friends who were so interested in putting the whole business in the hands of the Government just to notice how the Government managed when it got a monopoly. The Government had a monopoly of the savings bank business; having got that monopoly, they said they were not subject to the obligations which ordinary private individuals were under in similar matters. He did not like that clause at all, and when they came to it, the position in that respect would require very careful consideration and amendment. But, of course, the principal clause to which the hon. Baronet devoted himself was the clause dealing with the question of rebates. Well, he (Mr. Merriman) objected to that most strongly; he had always objected to it whenever the question of this mail contract had come up, because he did not think it was wise for this or any Government to mix up the question of sending letters—the postal contracts—and of dealing with mercantile matters with the question of rebates. The two things had nothing in the wide world to do with each other. Now, the hon. Baronet had spoken of supporting the contractors with a large subsidy. Well, the Government did not support them with a subsidy at all. The Government paid them for doing a certain service, and paid them, too, at a remarkably cheap rate— a cheaper rate than if the Government had to ship by freight the same quantity of goods. It was a payment for services rendered, and a payment on an extremely moderate scale, and it secured for us one of the most efficient mail services in the whole British Empire—he thought one might say in the whole of the world. But they were told that this rebate was such a dreadful thing that they must get at it by introducing it into, of all things in the world, a Postal Bill. Now, he had not the slightest objection to letting anybody hammer away at the rebate and try to destroy it if they could, so long as they did it in a straightforward and proper way, but to bracket it into a Postal Bill, and to complicate our postal service by hampering it with a rebate clause, was, he thought, extremely foolish and injudicious, and unlikely to have any effect, and in the end they would probably deeply regret that this hon. friend opposite (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. Baronet had meddled in the matter at all. That was a prophecy he made. But as a great deal had been said about the rebate, he wanted to make just a few remarks, which he thought might make people reflect. Now, he was particularly charmed to hear the hon. Baronet on the subject of combines and rings—(laughter)— it did him good, and it brought to his mind a book with which he thought the hon. Baronet was no doubt familiar—“The Fortunes of Nigel ”—and he dared say some of his friends would remember when the British Solomon spoke of his two friends, he staid to the jeweller: “Oh, Geordie, jingling Geordie, it was grand to hear Baby Charles laying down the law on the guilt of dissimulation, and Steenie on the turpitude of incontinence.” (Laughter.) Well, if he only lived in the present day to hear the hon. Baronet lecture on rings it would be a greater treat still. (Laughter.) Nobody knew what a ring was like except those who had been behind the door. He would not say the hon. Baronet had been behind the door, but he would say that a great many people said he had been—(laughter)—and in times past he (Mr. Merriman) had had many times to defend him on the score of his being a monopolist But there was no one who hated monopolists so much as one who had himself been accused of being one. Now, first of all, he (Mr. Merriman) said this rebate was not, a monopoly in any sense of the word. His hon. friend had said the shipping trade was an extraordinarily profitable trade. Well, his hon. friend was a man of capital; why did not he and his friends combine and put on a rival service, or support a rival line of steamers? They hadn’t got the pluck to do it. What they did was to induce some wretched man to put his money into the trade, and then leave him in the lurch. (Laughter.) They had done that times without number. Now, his hon. friend the Baronet seemed to be very familiar with the iniquities of combines. He wished those people who imagined that such a frightful amount was taken out of the pockets of the people would take the trouble to think what it all meant. Now, what was it? Five per cent. was the rebate. If his hon. friend had the pluck and the confidence in himself to go and ship by a line which would offer him, say, 10 per cent, more and stick to it, he could do so; the world was open to him. The 5 per cent, did not look as though the shipping business was such a remarkably profitable thing. The fact was that his hon. friends paid for getting a regular service. They knew that a steamer would have to start on a particular day with their baggage, though it might have little cargo. They knew that for years past that steamer had come here with very little cargo, and had been obliged to go Home again, sometimes, with scarcely a ton of goods on board. Still, these steamers had to sail regularly, and it was for that that the people using them had to pay. If it were such an extraordinarily lucrative monopoly he would imagine that the shares of this fortunate company would be at an extraordinary premium. They knew something in that House about shares; they knew that some of the shares in the fortunate place in which some of his friends were interested, were 16 and 17 times the value of what they were originally. Did they find that that was the position in regard to the shares of this company? No; if his hon. friend wanted to invest in the shares of this company he could get them at par. It might be said that they had put their profit into building up the lines. Well, if that were so, it would be reflected in the shares. It was said the managers made a great deal. Well, really, he was not in the secrets of the managers, but the fact was, these people ran their business extremely well. How was it, if the managers of this company were making such enormous profits, that the managers off the other lines did not do so? The fact was, that this line had been managed with consummate skill. On the one side, he should hope they had made a reasonable profit, because they would not have continued for long if they had not. Certainly, they had built up a line in South Africa which gave this country one of the best steamship services in the whole world —a line to which this country until quite recently was by no means entitled to by the magnitude of its trade, or the number of its passengers. No doubt, they made large profits out of the distressing war, but not out of the mere trade of the place. For many years, during the very bad times, they stuck to it, always improving the service, until now we had a service which was one of the best in the world. The service here was one of which they might well be proud. Now, as to the rates, like the quotation from the Blue-book on the Rebates Commission, they were extraordinarily partially taken out. They did not tell the whole story. The next time he dealt with this rebate question, when the clauses came on, he should have the Blue-book, and he should quote, not from the minority report, but from the majority report of the Commission. He frankly made them a present of this, if they read either the minority or the majority report they would be in pretty nearly as great a for as when they began. (Laughter.) They did put forward this, that in every part of the world connected with the British Empire the rebate system was adopted. It was the means of steadying freights. It had the advantage of building up those great shipping lines of which Great Britain was justly proud, though they would also find that as regarded the tramp steamer, it had operated disadvantageously. Then, of course, there remained what he would not attempt to argue, because he did not know much about it, as to these lines of magnificent steamships manned by English seamen and commanded by Englishmen, whether it was better to support them than the free steamers commanded by Germans or Norwegians, sailing under the British flag, and manned by Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and all the rest of it. Which was the best? Well, of course, it was not for him to argue. Galvanised iron had been dwelt upon. Did his hon. friend the Baronet know that they could bring out galvanised iron, if the merchants wanted to in a sailing ship, and have a sailing ship full, if they wanted a really cheap way of importing that article? But that was too much trouble for them. So it was with a number of other lines of rough goods. It was the want of enterprise in the merchants. (A laugh.) The fault lay with the merchant. It was the merchant who wanted to break this rebate system down. He (Mr. Merriman) did not like it. He belonged to that much-abused Manchester School. So did his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) where it was in his own interests. He did not like interference at all with trade. He (Mr. Merriman) should like everything to be perfectly free, so far as it could be. But, like his hon. friend, he thought they must have free trade with a dash of protection, and a dash of protection came in in the merchant’s interests. In whose interests was it to do away with the rebate system? The general public’s?

Yes.

No; the large merchants. The large merchant wanted to have an open market, in which he, having plenty of capital, could speculate in freights just as he did in everything else. The man who was going to be killed, if they did away with it, was the small up-country storekeeper, who got his orders out by the steamier. That was the man who would feel it first. It was a remarkable thing that in that report of the Commission almost all the producers—the people who were interested in shipping—were in favour of the rebate system. (Hear, hear.) They Said that it enabled them to quote prices for wool which they would not he able to do unless they knew what the freights were. Therefore, the exporter and the small man were in favour of the rebate system. The large merchant who liked to speculate in the freight market was endeavouring to do away with the rebate. He (Mr. Merriman) was open to conviction in these matters, because he really did not know much about the thing. But he must say he never saw a sorrier figure cut by any man than was cut by those ambassadors of ours who went to present the case in England. (Laughter.) He saw the right hon. member for Graham’s Town (Sir Starr Jameson) smiling at the recollection of it—(renewed laughter)—because he was unfortunately dragged into that embassy, and when he came there he found his friends, two eminent mercantile gentlemen, on the road Home had framed an Act which they sent to the Colonial Office. It was such a ludicrous Act that they wouldn’t print it. His hon. friend the member for Graham’s Town attended the Conference, and, really, although he did not think he (Sir Starr Jameson) was an authority on shipping, he must say that he did bring a little calm common-sense into the matter, and he was able to curb and check the enthusiasm of his fellow-ambassadors in this matter. He must say be never had a greater opinion of the hon. member’s common-sense than he bad on that occasion, but the other fellows made a most ludicrous exhibition of themselves. He did hope that the Baronet would not make the same ludicrous exhibition of himself. They now heard him talking about posting gold and posting ostrich feathers, and speaking exactly as if somebody or other was trying to set up a rival establishment in some way or other. He could imagine he heard the tone in which some rival establishment bad been addressed in regard to the strong power of the meat ring being put down in this country, and threats had been held out and bluff. He did hope that nothing of this sort would be tried on in this matter, because the end of it would be that they would find themselves in rather a ludicrous position. They would be left to the job steamer. The Post Office in England would make a contract for shipping their mails out here, and we should get those regularly. He believed that at the present time they paid about 60 per cent, of the subsidy. He presumed that they would continue to do that. We should have to send Home and pay the same price. We should not get out of it by the ostrich feathers or the gold carried by post. He did not know what the Post Office woulday when the ostrich feathers appeared in chose large boxes. Let them take it for granted that they were sent Home by parcels post. We should be driven to that, and there would be a freight war which he thought would be very disastrous for this country. If they were going to deal with rebates let them bring forward a local Act forbidding-them, and they could then argue the matter out; but as a clause in in Act dealing with Post Office matters he said that it was wholly out of place and he was perfectly sure that it was begun in a freak and it would end in a botch. (Cheers.)

said that his right hon. friend would never be so interesting if he were not so inconsistent. The other day he was warning them to beware lest they fell into the hands of the wealthy corporations carrying on business in this country. But now, when they were discussing another industry, the interests of the country were not discussed by the right hon. gentleman at all. The fact that the country was suffering, and had been suffering, from a condition of things which existed here he would not even consider; but he would pour ridicule upon any attempt that was made to relieve this country of a burden which was not now merely intolerable, but which for the last 20 years had been declared intolerable by every man in the country who had studied this question. He was surprised to-hear the hon. member for Greyville talking about the advantages of rebates because he had turned up a report which the hon. member had signed, and in which it was stated that should the difficulties of giving effect to the proposals in the report prove to be insurmountable, the Conference recommended the South African Governments to introduce legislation making it illegal under penalty to have deferred rebates. The hon. member had signed that report. It was his recommendation to the Governments of South Africa.

When?

The date of this is 1905. I do not know whether the conditions have altered, or whether the hon. member has changed this mind. Continuing, Sir Edgar said he was sorry that the right honourable gentleman, in dealing with this question, did not deal with it in the serious and responsible way in which be sometimes dealt with economic questions. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that where ocean transport was concerned, the vital interests of the people of this country were also concerned. They had to pay freight on every ton of goods brought into the country, and on every ton of produce sent out. So that it was a matter which directly touched both the producer and the consumer. When they imported goods into this country the price they had to charge depended upon the cost when landed if the freight were higher they had to pay higher. A country in the position of ours had to pay both ways. The people of this country were therefore vitally concerned in what had taken place during the last twenty years since this rebate system had come into force, and since a virtual monopoly had been created. Of course, there was a monopoly, and they maintained it only by means of the rebate. The report of the Shipping Conference of 1904-1905 showed that witness after witness stated that the present rates were grossly excessive in some cases, and were excessive in all cases, and the witnesses advocated the abolition of the rebate system. These opinions were not the opinions of any individual men, but of the Chambers of Commerce concerned. Of the whole of the witnesses examined, only one (his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, South-west (Mr. James Searle), disagreed:; but his hon. friend did not appear in a representative capacity on that occasion. All the other witnesses, however, were representative men, and their evidence was nearly all to the same effect, namely, that the deferred rebate system was the cause of excessive freights. It was asked why Government should interfere in a matter of this kind. This was the very justification—that the people of this country were being charged excessive rates; that the farmers were suffering through getting lower prices for their produce; and that the consumers were suffering because they were paying higher prices for imported articles. The business men were not altogether free from the responsibility of this rebate system. South Africa had an open freight market until about 20 odd years ago, and there was a good deal of competition among the merchants to get an advantage. One of the big shipping companies said to one of the larger merchants: “You, give us an undertaking that you will ship with us only for a year, and we will give you 5 per cent, reduction.” Other people found that out, and gradually everybody who was prepared to give an undertaking to ship by one line only obtained a reduction of 5 per cent. That was how the rebate system commenced. Eventually the discount was raised to 10 per cent., in order to make it more binding, and in the case of gold the rebate was 33 per cent. It was an agreement that operated very much to the disadvantage of the gold mining companies Gold nominally paid 7s. 6d., but the com panies had 2s. 6d. of this returned to them, and they stood to lose at any time they broke their agreement £40,000 to £50,000. The general traders’ rebate was more than 10 per cent. And it was not only that the rates were excessive—the fact that the rates were excessive would have been ample justification for the introduction of the Bill —but it was not only that the rates were excessive; there was the fact that the absolute control in this matter had passed out of the hands of the people in this country, and that was a state of things which no people ought to tolerate if they wished to retain their self-respect. (Cheers.) A little time ago the rates arbitrarily were altered. The South African Governments protested, and represented to the shipping companies that the alteration would inconvenience the people and disturb all existing arrangements, and they begged the shipping companies not to carry out this new proposal, with the result that the latter refused to take any notice of the Governments of South Africa, and carried out their will. The effect of this was that as soon as the rates were altered the whole of the Governments had to rearrange the railway rates, and this put the trade to a great inconvenience, simply because the shipping companies had carried out this alteration, and against the will of the people.

No; Natal demanded it the whole time.

That does not alter the fact that the Governments protested. How was Natal to get an advantage?

Justice.

said the Governments of South Africa objected. Natal, with which a little arrangement had been come to, saw it had made a mistake, and it agreed to readjust the railway rates and to remove the advantage which it had obtained—and from which it gained nothing. In fact, Natal tried to be a little too clever, and he hoped it would not try to do it again. Another danger was that not only did South Africa pay excessive rates, but it gave the control of this important trade into the hands of companies, and the companies were not South African companies. He did not wish to dwell too much on that point except to say that those who read the correspondence would find that at one time the companies were asked to send representatives to a conference to be held in South Africa to consider this question. Their answer was: “No; we don’t want to come to South Africa. Our companies are in London, and if you send representatives to London, we will talk to you.” We in South Africa paid the piper, but if we wished to talk about the rates we had to pay we had to go to London to do it, for the shipping companies would not take the trouble to send out representatives. It was quite true, as the right hon. member for Victoria West had reminded them, these people were very strong. They had succeeded in imposing in the country their own will, and the right hon. member thought they were going to continue to succeed. Well, he did not believe they would. He was quite sure the people of South Africa were determined to be no longer entirely under the control of an English company in this matter. When we, as a self-respecting people, had a voice in the matter, and if the House made up its mind, no one could prevent it, and if the House once stood by the Government in this matter, as he hoped it would, because this was not a party question—(cheers)—an end could be put to the system. It was a matter in which all could join together to see that the interests of the country were protected. He thought the mover of the Bill had gone the right way to bring about that result. They were told that there were differences of opinion among the people of South Africa, and the steps to be taken as to the remedy to be obtained, and Mr. Merriman bad drawn a line between the rich and the small merchant. He (Sir E. Walton) agreed that there was some difference of opinion, but it was not between the big merchant and the small, but between the big merchants themselves. There was no difference of opinion as to the present rates being excessive. They were all agreed on that point, but there were merchants who were a little afraid of confusion in the freight market if rebates were abolished. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, however, all the evidence that they had been able to get—and it came from responsible commercial men—was in favour of the abolition of rebates. (Hear, hear.) That had been denied by different speakers, and had been mentioned by the right honourable member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), so he (Sir E. Walton) asked the House to bear with him for a couple of minutes while he quoted what some of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission had said. Mr. Nisbett who represented the East London Chamber of Commerce, said that the rates were unfair and excessive. Mr. Nisbett put before the Conference a scheme to take the place of the rebate system, but Mr. Nisbett was practically in favour of the abolition of the rebate system, and was not afraid of a disturbance in the freight market, thinking that the question would settle itself. He (Sir E. Walton) could not understand the argument that shipping companies were so very different from any other industry in the world. How was it that in any other industry prices did not change, and volume did not vary from very low to very high and so on? There was competition in every other industry, and with competition they got a certain low level of charges. Without competition, they got the highest possible prices; but it was the highest possible level people could charge without bringing about a public protest. Well, they also got evidence from the Durban Chamber of Commerce. They held that the rebate system was iniquitous, and that the rates were excessive. Also, they got evidence from Johannesburg, from Kimberley, from Bulawayo, from Port Elizabeth, and, of course, from. Cape Town. That evidence was unanimous on both these points: that the rates were excessive, and that the only possible remedy was the abolition of the rebate. His hon. friend the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had not got so far as to recommend the abolition of the rebate. He had gone as far, perhaps, as in a Bill of this sort he ought to go. He laid down that, so far as the mail contract was concerned, it shall not be given to any company that practised the rebate system. Why the hon. member for Victoria West Mr. Merriman) should laugh at his hon. friend when he talked of shipping gold by post, he did not know. He did not seem to be aware of the fact that it had been the general rule in the world. Also, a good many ostrich feathers were sent by post now. He would now like to touch upon produce dealers being in favour of the rebate system. There were two reasons for that, and one, of course, was that it did not matter to them what rates were paid on freight. The produce dealer bought his wool; or whatever it might he, and shipped it to Europe, and got his price for it, and got his commission on it; and whether the freight was high or low, did not matter; but what did matter was that the rate on freights should be fixed, because then he was not in danger of having some competing dealer shipping by some lower rate of freight. There was another reason. The produce dealer got, at the end of the year, his rebate on the freight that he had paid the shipping company—a rebate of 10 per cent. formerly, but now it was 5 per cent. It was impossible to distribute that rebate among all the men he had been buying wool from. He kept that rebate, and, to him, it was a sort of extra commission. So, if they abolished the rebate system it would be very difficult to make up to the dealer what he had been in the habit of making by this deferred rebate. (Hear, hear.) He was going to lose a certain commission on his produce, so he (Sir Edgar Walton) was not at all surprised at his opposing this proposal. It was not only the produce dealer who benefited by it; there was the shipping agent on the other side. He did not always distribute that rebate to his customers. A great many of them retained it, and to him also it was a sort of extra commission. There was another thing, and it emphasised the necessity of having some Government control of shipping. When protests were made to the shipping companies some time ago with regard to the rates of freight, and when the public agitation was on, it was true that they decreased the repate from ten to five per cent., and the people were told: “Well, you will not have this rebate so bad as it has been before, it will only be five per cent.” That meant that the shipping companies retained five per cent, of the whole of the freights They in South Africa were told that the shipping companies wanted to create a fighting fund, and they were going to take this five per cent. for it. His hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) would see that the shipping companies had a very disagreeable way of dealing with the country when they got the advantage in their power. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to say something with regard to some of the clauses of the Bill, and, with regard to the Savings Bank clause, he thought the Hon. the Minister had taken powers that were a little too wide. He thought he had provided for the savings banks to take money from corporations to an unlimited extent. Also he allowed a rate of interest up to five per cent. One point on which he found himself in agreement with the Hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was in regard to clause 117. (Cheers.)

said he did not object personally to the Government endeavouring to get better terms, but he did object very strongly to the whole of the force of the Government being placed against this question of rebates; because, to his mind, that was the one thing shipping companies could defend with more success than anything else. They had a rebate of 5 per cent., and he thought they would find as time goes on that any decent shipping company would insist on the rebate. After all, surely there was something to be said for the system. The present company, beyond shadow of doubt, gave them one of the best services in the world they were as certain of regular shipments as of the morning milk, and they had no need to keep up large stocks. What he wanted to know was this: (Suppose they insisted on smashing that up, and they were able to ship anywhere and everywhere, were they going to get that same state of affairs? No. What they were going to get was a condition of things under which the enormously wealthy merchant was going to have the small man under his thumb.

No; we never had it before.

There are lots of things this country never had before that they are going to have now. Proceeding, he said that to-day the small man had equal advantage with the larger merchant.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing the debate, said that when the House adjourned that afternoon, he was making an effort to put before the House the way in which the matter appealed to a large number of people who, like himself, were very much interested in it. He had tried to show that one of the results, one of the most certain results, would be a freight war, a thing which was quite likely to come to pass if the House passed the present Bill. One of the most certain results of a freight war was that the very large importer would be benefited as against the small man, who, at the present time, in so far as his importations went, stood on an equality with the biggest merchants of the country, and he would be the first to suffer. He thought that the class of man they wanted to encourage into this country was the class of man who started business with his own capital. One of the arguments that afternoon, which caused him considerable amusement and surprise, was that under the new conditions which were brought about, it would not matter very much whether the mails took two or three days longer. They did not tell them that, instead of having one reliable mail per week, almost as regular as the morning sun, they would have three mails per week perhaps, and every old ship that could carry a bag of mails would bring mails. In the meantime what was going to happen? Was the British Government going to have the mails carried in that haphazard manner? What about the passengers? Everyone knew to-day that they had one off the finest passenger services in the world. What he feared was, if the Bill passed, that they would have confusion from the very start. There would be certain freights, and everything would be the opposite to what they have to-day. But what he wanted to know was whether these mails were to be carried by British ships?

Certainly.

What guarantee have we of that?

Parliament.

went on to say that no guarantee was given there in that Bill; they had not had a word that these mails would be carried in British bottoms. No one knew what the intentions of the Government were, except in so far as they were stated in that Bill.

You move it in, and we will accept it.

There is some consolation in that. He proceeded to say that, surely in the very careful speech they had had that afternoon they would have heard something of that: two Ministers had been busy on that speech, and they had heard nothing about it. (Laughter.) All that he complained of was this: that he thought that in that Bill an attempt had been made to make a dead-sot aginst one particular company, and to drive that company off the seas. (VOICES: “No.”) Well, the clause was so worded, that it could not mean anything else. Could anybody in that House tell them of a company of any note, of any standing, which did not go in for that rebate business? Where could they get the other ships? They could not create a fleet of ships in a month which are regularly going to carry the mails to England. He said that the Government had tied its hands if it could not devise some other method of forcing the shipping companies to reduce the rates. He thought the rates were too high, and he thought everybody asked to get those rates reduced.

What chance have you got?

Admit, as you must admit, that the company has indulged at times in very high-handed proceedings—the high rates are admitted admit all that, and there still stands a great, deal which is to their credit. Proceeding, Mr. Quinn said that the Minister had never said one word about the splendid service. It had been a direct attack on one particular company, that was all. He did not think the suggestions had been a very dignified way for the Government to attack a subject of this sort; to divert by Act of Parliament freights, and to force its exporters to send their freight from this country and gold by the way the Government wish. It seemed to him a very high-handed action indeed, and he feared that they were making a leap in the dark. The Minister in charge of the Bill had given them no idea as to what he expected would happen In the event of the Union-Castle Company refusing to give up its rebate system. The Minister himself did not seem to know, and no one else knew. Taking for granted that the Union-Castle Company refused to give up its rebate system after their contract expired, what was going to take its place? Let him remind the House that they had in this country to-day on the railways a far worse system than the Union-Castle system.; and he thought the less they said about the Union-Castle Company the better; in fact, the less the Government said the better. He would support the Government heartily, gladly, in any fair, honest, or square attempt to get a reduction of rates by giving the company a fair and equal chance with others. They had no right to single out a special company for special treatment. He hoped the spirit of compromise would prevail. Nothing could he done without it, except something that might lead to serious trouble. He would certainly vote against this clause in its present form, although he was not in favour of rebates. He was not prepared to let a 5 per cent, rebate stand in the way, and he hoped that before the House dismissed the matter it would try to compromise.

said that for the past 15 years they had been dominated by one single shipping company. They had been trying to bring it to reason for the past 15 years, and had failed every time. He would like to remind the House, however, that the Germans brought the same company to reason in ten weeks in the matter of the South African trade. As regarded foreign competition, he said that the Conference Lines brought that about. This Bill was looked upon as an act of spoliation against the Conference Lines, but in his opinion, it was an honest attempt to place the future shipping of this country on an economic and sound basis. They had got the opportunity, and they had got to use it.

said that, after listening to the speech of his hon. friend who had just spoken (Mr. Rockey), he came to the conclusion that they were going into this great campaign with insufficient preparations. The hon. member said that they had been dominated by the shipping company, but he wished to say that, as far as the Government was concerned, they had always won. So far as private merchants were concerned, they might have been beaten, but so far as the Government was concerned it had always won. It had a clear record of victory in this matter. There was an occasion, when the Government did get into trouble with the Conference Lines, and they had a little period of conflict. And who won? Well, his hon. friend (the Minister in charge of the Bill) knew very well that the Government won, and compelled the Conference Lines to reduce their rates, and those rates were reduced at the present time. Did his hon. friend the Minister deny that?

Yes.

said that he would refer his hon. friend the Minister to a document which he had not read, hut which he had quoted from that afternoon—the report of the Sub-Commission which was sent to South Africa, and which investigated this matter as far as South Africa was concerned. He quite agreed with the hon. member who spoke just now, that they were not discussing the question of whether the rates were high or not. The whole question was whether these proposals were effective or not. He was entirely convinced that in many respects the rates now being charged by the Conference Lines were excessive, but the point where he was unable to follow his hon. friend was this—that he did not believe his hon. friend’s proposals were at all calculated to deliver them from their present position, and he did not believe that his hon. friend had any sufficient authority to go upon. He, (Mr. (Fremantle) trusted the House would look into the matter from that point of view, and that they would not think this; was a question of whether the rates were high or low, but whether the remedy proposed was likely to be effective. Looking at the matter from that point of view, and with a bias in favour of his hon. friend, he was reluctantly brought to the belief that his hon. friend’s proposals would not be effective, but that they were calculated to, do an immense amount of harm, to this country. This was not a shipping country, and they must remember that they were dealing with a question they knew little of except at second hand. He was very much struck, looking up the history of this question, to read of the part taken in it by the right hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson) in regard to this question, because when the right hon. gentleman came back from the Shipping Conference he made a speech in Cape Town, and he said, according to reports at the time, that he found at the Conference that he knew nothing of the question. There was another matter, continued Mr. Fremantle, which inspired him with a great deal of diffidence on this question. He would like every member on those (the Government benches to know who the authors were of these proposals This was not so much a Government Bill, at any rate, according to the history of these proposals. The authors of these proposals were a section of hon. gentlemen who sat on the opposite side of the House, who had made a sudden convert of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet had slipped into this Bill of 128 clauses one little clause dealing with this matter entirely in the spirit of the hon. members opposite, and entirely against, as he ventured to maintain, the spirit represented on that (the Government) side of the House. This was the importers’ business. On the Government side of the House they represented in the main the exporters or producers. This was not a producers Bill—it was an importers’ Bill. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said that if they condemned the rebates, they should follow the proposal of the, hon. member for-Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), and deal with it in a separate Bill. Surely it was big enough, This was a subject which had overtaxed the powers of great countries, but the hon. Baronet was going to deal with it in a Post Office Bill. He thought the Minister would find the question a much greater one than he seemed now to think. The Minister had no authority at all for the position he had taken up, except his own business record. It ought to be remembered that they were dealing with this from the point of view of the Government, and from that point of view there was no difficulty at all. The Minister had not alleged that there was any such difficulty. He had not alleged that the freight rates to, the Government were high, or that the Government had any grievance whatever so far as the mail contracts were concerned. From the point of view of the Government, there was no dissatisfaction with the situation. The fact was that the Government was asked to make sacrifices to come to the rescue of big importers. Then it must not be forgotten, that some of these gentlemen had distinctly set themselves against the interests of the Government. If they went into the history of this question, and if they considered the long agitation there had been about it, one thing that was specially demanded was a uniform rate, so that the Government should pay the same rates as the ordinary private shippers. What happened was that the Government had a very low freight for itself. The private shippers, quite rightly, on business lines, had to pay more, and these hon. members, the importers, went about raising a great agitation, and said the Government must pay the same as the private shipper, which meant that the Government should be obliged to pay a larger rate in order that the hon. member and other importers might have lower freights. Now, as far as the rebate system was concerned, he must say that he was in the condition of the right hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson). Despite his lengthy researches into this question, he had the greatest suspicion of his own knowledge of this question, and a still greater suspicion of the knowledge of the hon. member (Sir Edgar Walton) who sat by the right hon. member for Albany as his adviser on this matter. It must be remembered that they were dealing with a problem which applied to all parts of the British Empire, and wherever this great business of shipping was carried on. They were dealing with a general tendency in the shipping trade. They were not dealing with a question which affected South Africa alone, but a general question, which was hound up with one of the greatest trades in the whole world. Therefore they must look at the question from the other side of the shipping question also. The merchants were not by any means united in this matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. Walton) gave the House to understand that the merchants were united in this matter. The London Committee of South African Merchants had declared in favour of this system of deferred rebates, and he supposed his hon. friend opposite would agree with him on this point, that as far as the London Committee were concerned, they were not in agreement with him. They did not regard the system of deferred rebates with the same horror as he (Mr. Jagger) did. Even in South Africa, when this Commission came out, there was by no means a unanimous statement of opinion. The East London Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution. They refused to enlist under the banner of his hon. friend. The hon. the Baronet had not yet raised his banner on this question.

rose to a point of order, and asked whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House to refer merely to the honourable member’s title.

said that as his attention had been called to this matter, he would like to point out to the hon. member for Uitenhage that the rule was as follows “No member shall refer to any other member by name, but shall speak of him as the member for the division or town he represents, or as the member sitting in a particular part of the House, or as the member who spoke at a certain period of the debate.” Consequently, the honourable: member for Uitenhage, if he wished to refer to the honourable members title, must refer to him as the Hon. the Baronet the member for So-and so.

said he regretted if he had departed from the rules in his maladroit attempts to pay his hon. friend: a compliment, but he was following the practice of the House of Commons, which he understood were the authors of the Rules of this House.

I must point out to the honourable member for Uitenhage that that is not the practice of the House’ of Commons The practice of the House of Commons is to refer to “the Hon. the Baronet the member for So-and-so.”

said that as his attention had been called directly to his hon. friend the Minister in charge of this Bill, he would like to point out one important matter on which his hon. friend, no doubt unintentionally, made a statement which was calculated to mislead the House that afternoon. His hon. friend was referring to the Sub-Commission which visited South Africa, and, as he understood him, he said that that Commission made certain recommendations, and he read out from the report of the Sub-Commission, “The chief remedies suggested may be classified as follows.” Those remedies, however, were merely referred to as remedies which had been recommended, not by the Sub-Commission, but to the Sub-Commission. The result was that his hon. friend left the House under the impression that these recommendations came with the authority of the Sub-Commission, whereas they came with no authority at all, except the authority of certain witnesses who recommended them to the Commission. This Sub-Commission begar, in the first clause of the report by saying; that they did not wish to express any opinion on the evidence and they did not think it advisable that they should submit their conclusions as to the chief matters of controversy or submit any recommendations. He thought this showed that his hon. friend had not, at any rate recently, read this report of the Sub-Commission at all. There was no recommendation from the Sub-Commission, but the Sub-Commissioners were members of the Commission, and naturally, as members of the Commission, their views were to be found either in the majority or the minority report, but at any rate they were not to be quoted in favour of those recommendations which were mentioned by his hon. friend that afternoon. According to this Sub-Commission which, after all took the most exhaustive evidence in South Africa, and was perfectly impartial in the way in which it took evidence, they would find that they said that on the whole the exporters were satisfied with the present system. They said they would “invite attention to the satisfaction with the present state of affairs which on the whole prevails amongst merchants exporting produce.” The whole of this agitation, which had now been patronised by the Hon. the Minister, and the Government as a whole, he regretted to say, had been organised from first to last by the importers, and not by the producers and exporters of this country. That ought to weigh with hon. members on that, the Ministerial side of the House, when they found that this movement had been engineered by people whose interests were not their own. When that conference was arranged of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth was the chairman, the South African Committee, to which the Minister had alluded that afternoon, it was thought necessary that there should be an expert well acquainted with the shipping world, and therefore the hon. member for Port Elizabeth and the Government, with which he was associated, communicated with the Imperial Government, and they invited the Imperial Government—at that time the Government of Mr. Balfour—to send them a shipping expert who would be quite impartial, and who would be thoroughly competent to advise them on shipping questions. They sent Mr. Douglas Owen, who was an authority in England on shipping questions. He was brought out, like Balaam, to curse, and, instead of cursing, he blessed the shipping company. He made an exhaustive report, which was generally recognised by everybody concerned as a very able report on the whole of this question. The first people who interested themselves in this matter were the Portuguese Government, and they at once dissociated themselves from these recommendations. The Board of Trade in England at once expressed scepticism, and so did the Colonial Office, and the result was that instead of a conference a Commission was appointed, which was regarded on all hands as an impartial one. A Bill was produced, and immediately the Portuguese Government once more said that they regarded it as impracticable, and they refused to have anything to do with it. He would like to ask whether the Portuguese Government, the Colonial Office, the Imperial Government, and the Board of Tirade had expressed any views on these proposals, because this was a vital matter which the House should know before dealing with a revolutionary proposal of this nature. Then the Royal Commission was entirely hostile to any such proposals as those made by the Government on the present occasion. Therefore, the Government had no authority under which to hide, and it was making a few more precedents. The Minister in charge of the Bill was asking the House to follow him on a path which had been traced before, and never without disaster. He (Mr. Fremantle) wished to appeal to the experience of other countries. He bad heard some most moving and heartrending eloquence from the hon, member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) on the subject of the United States Act. The United States started off with as much zeal and enthusiasm as his hon. friend to try and stop the rebate system. They passed an Act, but they did not succeed in their desire. The Union-Castle Company was actually tried before the Courts of the United States on this very point, but it was found that the Courts could not deal with the question, and it was perfectly clear that the United States law did not deal with this question at all. Australia was as determined to get rid of the rebate system as anybody could be. But they die; not deal with it in the mail contract; they decided it could not be dealt with in the mail contract. But now he wished to point out one authority which ought to weigh still more with them, and that was the authority of their own Acts in this matter. He was not at all sure that his hon. friend was not the very author of a system of rebates which we were practising at the present time in South Africa. He thought it was at a time when his hon. friend was acting in charge of the railways—to the great advantage of the country—that a system was introduced practically the same as deferred rebates. They tried to stamp out competition from the unfortunate ox-wagon, because they saw the railways were not strong enough to compete with the ox-wagon on their own ground, and therefore they gave special rates at the ports to all merchants who had all their goods carried by railways alone. The hon. gentlemen opposite who represented the mercantile community were extremely convinced and determined on the present occasion, but they had not always been in favour of proposals of this kind. His hon. friend opposite, although he had not exactly drafted the clause, was to a great extent the man behind the gun, who had to a large extent organised the agitation which had led to this result. His hon. friend was not always in favour of this. In his (Mr. Jagger’s) exalted position as president of the Chamber of Commerce, he declared that he was not in favour of the proposal, but of different ones.

When was that?

quoting from a report, said that Mr. Stephen had stated at the meeting at which this subject was discussed that no one had worked harder against the shipping federation than had the president, and Mr. Stephen asked Mr. Jagger to give them his views on the matter. The result was that the president said: “I gave my views in the opening address, and there is nothing more to add.” What the president in his opening address said was that they should have differential dock charges for companies charging differential rates, and that in his (Mr. Jagger’s) opinion that was the only effective means that South Africa could use to put an end to the rebate system. The Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution in 1906 stating that the Government freight requirements should be kept separate from mail contracts.

That is a different thing altogether.

We are dealing with the mail contract. It is not a different thing altogether. Proceeding, Mr. Fremantle said they had almost everybody against the Government’s proposals. They had the exporters against them, at least up till a recent date. They had the whole of the shipping trade against them, and they had the Associated Chambers of Commerce against those proposals. Such an array of authority against the proposals of the Government he did not think had ever been collected on any previous occasion. If they looked at the evidence given before the Sub-Commission of the Royal Commission in South Africa, they would find very clear evidence on that subject. He wanted to point out certain dangers in the proposals before the House. There was a question of fluctuating rates. The great bulk of the evidence was, that if you tried to deal with the proposals in this way, the result would be fluctuating rates. As regards the effect upon the small man, the evidence was almost unanimous. It was almost unanimous that the small man was going to suffer. He would like to know why the Government was taking up the case of the big man as against the small man? There was another point of view he would like to emphasise to hon. members of that side of the House. They were now engaged in interfering with private property in a way which was entirely contrary to the principles represented on that side of the House. On that side of the House Socialistic ideas were not popular at all, the Government were interfering in the most drastic way with the rights of property.

How?

said: Well, the Government compels ships to come to this country to carry mails, not in accordance with the contract at all, but at rates fixed by Government, and these rates shall be fixed, not according to a tender, but according to the Government. The system of rebate was the only one that made liners possible, and the alternative to that was the tramp. It was all very well to refer to the American trade, but that was a system of its own. It was a warning effect of the enormously difficult task that they were undertaking. What he was afraid of more than anything was the introduction of the tramp system, which had made shipping a disgrace to many nations of the world. If his hon. friend would read statistics upon the subject, he would see that if they tried be interfere with this system, it would be to substitute Lascars for English seamen, and surely everyone would repudiate that system. The only way to deal with the rebate question as his hon. friend proposed was to subsidise another line. Why, therefore, did he not put it in the Bill? His hon. friend did not want to subsidise the mails only, but the freights as well, and lit seemed much better that he should deal with it in this way rather than in any other. Proceeding, he said that what he wanted to suggest was that there should be a Board of Control, and on that Board the shipowners, the Government, and shippers should be represented. He wanted to ask the Hon. Minister in charge of the matter why he did not propose anything of that sort? What he would suggest to him, with all due deference, was that he should revert to that suggestion, in conjunction with the suggestion he had put before the House that day; that then they should have a Board of Control representing the Government, shippers, and shipowners, and that they should have certain differential duties. It seemed to him that in that way they might deal in a fair way with this question of rebates. It was quite right that some authority should decide when there was some reason for the suggestions that had been made, but it appeared to him the burning point was not a question of rebates at all, but a question of rates. It seemed, as far as he had been able to judge from those who spoke with authority, that there had been excessive rates charged, and he could not understand the rate that is charged at the present time for mealies—but if did seem to him that his hon. friend the Minister, and the Government as a whole, was on the wrong tack in dealing with this question of rebate, because they might still have excessive rates. He was entirely at one with his hon. friend who introduced the Bill in regard to the clause which he introduced that afternoon. He had always been in favour of it, and a believer in it, for it touched the real question—the question of rates. If his hon. friend considered the suggestion he had made: that he should combine with that proposal the question of a Board of Control, representing the three interests concerned—the Government, shippers, and shipowners—and say that differential rates should be charged in accordance with the finding of that Board, then be believed he would be touching the real question, and touching it far more effectively than he did in the Bill. Therefore, he for one would vote for the second reading. He would do his utmost in the interval to induce his hon. friend and the Government to try and deal with this matter (probably in a separate Bill) in the method he had suggested by having differential rates, and having an independent Board, and by exerting the force of the harbours, so that they would have those harbours used in the interests of the people in this country. In doing so, he claimed the authority of the South African Conference. That Conference reported in favour of differential dock dues. If they added to that an independent and fair-minded Board of control, be thought their proposal would very likely have found-general acceptance; but they did not do that. But, at any rate, it was that proposal which was advocated by the Conference. He hoped something of that kind would be done, because he thought they should use the right they had to insist on having a voice as to what should, or what should not, be done in regard to the trade in this country. (Hear, hear.)

congratulated Mr. Fremantle on having given a proof of his interest in the Bill and having said that he proposed voting for the second reading. (Laughter.) He was exceedingly sorry that his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was not present, because he could then congratulate him on having his hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle), after a slight lapse from grace, returned to the bosom of faith. (Laughter.) They had heard a great deal of discussion in connection with the measure which his hon. friend the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had introduced into the House by means of a speech of such a clear and business-like character, that he would like to have that opportunity of congratulating him. He (Sir Thomas) believed with him that if they were to deal with this question, this was the psychological moment to deal with it and he would say to his hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) that, he had given the strongest arguments possible for pushing forward the Bill, because he had told the hon. Minister that when the combination had come into direct conflict with the Government, the Government had always succeeded. What he objected to in this discussion was that hon. members on both sides of the House seemed to think the Bill was introduced solely and entirely in the interests of the big importer. He hoped this Bill was introduced in the interests of the people of South Africa as a whole. (Cheers.) That was the duty of the Government—it was to protect the interests of the people; and when they were told the Bill was introduced solely in the interests of the big importer, he would say he was supporting it solely because it was in the interests of the people. (Cheers.) That was the point of his hon. friend the Minister in the afternoon. They were told by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) that the shares of this company were not fetching very nigh prices on the market. He was not going into the full details of the financial operations of this company. The company had not entered into the business in South Africa from a philanthropic point of view, but in their own interests, and he did not wish to say anything to detract in any way from the admirable service they had rendered to South Africa. But they had rendered it in their own interests and that of their shareholders, and he would say it was now their duty to see that a new contract was not entered into in the interests of the company and its shareholders, but in the interests of the people of South Africa. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman referred to the share capital, which amounted to £2,670,000; this, he thought any person associated with shipping would tell them, was the capital of the mail boats, not to speak of the intermediate boats. How these boats had been built without appearing in the capital of the company it was not for him to say, and how it was they were not paying larger profits he left the representatives of the company to say. He only hoped the company would realise what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had said: that the Government was determined that it would be impossible for this combination, or any other combination, to refuse to carry the produce of the country. Hon. members spoke during the afternoon as if it would appear that they were putting iniquitous pressure upon this combination to deal with their trade. What they did say was that if they desired to get that trade they would be obliged to get it under certain conditions, and that was that they do not engage in any combine. He had heard it said that the system of rebates was a great detriment to the producers of this country in getting the cheapest possible machinery and goods they could. Continuing, Sir Thomas detailed a case in which a firm would have lost thousands of pounds in rebates had it carried out certain instructions to get some goods sent out by a cheap line. If that was the condition of the business arrangements in this country he asked whether it was not the duty of that or any other country, when the opportunity arose, of trying to make provision for the future. Then they had been told by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) that that was a Post Office Bill, and that they should introduce nothing else. He had heard that before, but the carriage of mealies was only one of the offers of the Government of the country, and if they had that money to give away they should use that money to try to reduce the carriage of goods to that country, and give the people of the country a more favourable opportunity of competing with any other country. South Africa was not the only country which had to deal with matters of that sort. Some years ago they found that the Government of the Straits Settlements had to deal with a similar matter, and he thought they had passed a measure which was awaiting the sanction of the Imperial Government.

It is not like this one.

It deals with rebates, and so does this measure. If my hon. friend is so anxious to see rebates done away with, he should see that this lever should be used by the Government. He went on to say that with regard to what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had stated with reference to the carriage of mails, he did not think it was the intention of the Government for the foreigner to step in, but what they wanted was to get the best tenderer. His hon. friend had referred to the time when the company bad: raised the rates on Government freight; he admitted that the rates had been lower than in the case of any other individual, but owing to the loyal co-operation of the other colonies the company had bad to accept the terms of the Government, and if they bad not stood firm it would have been utterly impossible now to have embarked on a policy of that sort. When they had got £500,000 to negotiate with, surely it was going to be in the interests of the people of South Africa, to have a quicker mail service than the people of South Africa had had in the past., Today they were in no better position as far as reducing the time between Southampton and Cape Town was concerned than twenty years ago. He remembered coming out in the Scot, and a year later in the Dunottar Castle, in times which were much below those taken by the present mail boats. He remembered the Soot once coming in on: a Sunday afternoon.

But it did not pay.

said that the speed of the mail boats was reduced at the latter stage of the voyage to that of the slowest boat, so that they all came in on the Tuesday morning. What they could do was to protect the future possible development of the industries of South Africa, and they could only protect those industries if they saw that in any contract they entered into, due provision was made for fair and reasonable rates. He had been surprised to hear the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) talking of 7s. 6d. and 10s. a ton as a mere bagatelle, but there were industries where 5s. or 7s. 6d. a ton was the making or the marring of those industries. (Hear, hear.) When the rate on mealies had been increased by 1s. 6d. a ton, his right hon. friend the Prime Minister knew how seriously the mealie industry of the Transvaal had been affected, because the farmers were afraid that if the rate were raised 1s. 6d. it might be raised 3s. and then 5s., and then it would not have been worth while for the farmers to enter that trade. The contention of the companies in the past was that they had such high outward rates, because they had no cargo to take Home. They said they had to fill up the ships with sand and water; but surely it was better to fill up with mealies. They ought to see that every reasonable arrangement was entered into while that contract was being made. He was not in any way against the company. He wished to see the company go ahead and build bigger steamers, which would be able to make the journey in fourteen days, but he wanted the House to be dictators of the money which was to be spent, and not that the company should be the dictators. He was one of those who thought with his hon. friend that he must stick to that Bill and to that clause, and that the country must be prepared, while another fleet was being built, to stand some temporary inconvenience, because in the end they were bound to be successful. (Cheers.) The duty of that Parliament was to the people of the country, and not to private corporations. (Cheers.)

said that, speaking as a merchant, he did not want cut rates; they were quite satisfied with rebates—if the population was satisfied. Still, he said, as a merchant of this country, that they must consider the interests of that country first. (Hear, hear.) Now, to show the way in which the Conference lines treated the constituency he represented, the Conference lines had an agreement to take cargo to Cape Town and to Port Elizabeth, which was 36 hours further on, at the same rate, and the freight to East London, which was 18 hours further on was 7s. 6d. per ton more. Then going on to Natal, which was 24 hours further, they charged the same rate as to East London. He called this scandalous, and until these Conference lines were called up, they would have that treatment. On the other hand, when the boats came from Mauritius, and the boats went to Port Elizabeth, they charged nothing extra, as compared with East London. If the freight on mealies was to be raised to 14s. by the Conference lines to Southampton, as was stated by the Minister, we would have to stop the growing of mealies in this country. East London could not fight the shipping ring, and the only remedy they had was to give their support to the Government. He was bound to support the Government in this Bill.

said he thought the Government would have been greatly to blame had they not, in the early part of the session, brought before the House as soon as possible the question of the oversea transportation to this country. He thought himself that no more important question had come before the House. Now, the question arose—had a case been made out showing that the people of South Africa were paying excessive rates? He thought that it had been made out that excessive rates were paid. Every business man knew the history of these Conference lines. They had had to meet competition, and they had had to gather together all the lines which competed in that part of the world, and the result was that more capital was employed, and a greater number of ships were employed than were requisite for the trade of the country, and therefore he thought they were paying the interest on a greater amount of capital than was needed for the trade of this country. The question next came as to whether a case had been made out showing that the Government had no control of the sea tariff to this country. He thought it had been shown that the Government had no control. They had no control, for one thing, over the differential rates to the different ports in this country. The Government had control of the railways, and he thought that they should have some control or some say in the transport by sea to and from this country. He thought the only solution of this great difficulty would be for the Government themselves to own the steamers. But that perhaps in the early days of Union was too great an undertaking. Now, the question to his mind was this: They all had the same object in view, and they all desired to support the Government in order that the producer in South Africa should be able to get his goods away at reasonable rates. On the other hand, he must say that they must be prepared to pay fair remuneration for the services rendered, and the only respect in which he differed from some of the previous speakers was as to the means of arriving at a settlement of the difficulty. They were launching out on a very big fight indeed, and they must be quite sure that in any initial step they took they moved in the right direction. There was no doubt in his mind as to the ultimate result. He knew there might be an upheaval in trade; perhaps some people might suffer, but he knew that in the end the Union of South Africa, if they were determined, would succeed. Now, he had gone carefully through the whole of the report of the Royal Commission, and he could not find there any proposed legislation against rebates. He could find references to legislation controlling the rebates, but he could not find any suggestions of doing away with the rebates. Personally, he thought that the rebate was a very useful weapon. It had been so in the hands of the combination they now had to fight, and we should be very careful to keep that weapon in the hands of the Government. Now, the hon. member for Cape Town had referred to the question of legislation in America, and had said that there was no rebate in America; that it had been done away with That was quite correct, but combination had not been done away with in America. The hon. member for Cape Town had Said that he as a merchant was against the rebate system, and it had been said by other hon. members that the merchants generally were against the rebate system, but he would point out that that did not agree with the evidence given by Mr. Soper on behalf of the South African merchants before the Royal Commission in London. The reason and the means by which all the great American combinations had been built up had been by preferential rates which favoured the big man, and which the small man could not, get. He thought, the Government’s remedy was by way of making a collective bargain. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) said that the only remedy was the abolition of the rebate System. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth went on to say that there had been an open freight market for the last twenty-five years. Well, he (the speaker) did not think that was an argument, because the volume of trade twenty-five years ago was very different to what it was to-day. Then the comparison with America as an open freight market was not a true comparison. He had given some objections to the question of rebates, and that brought him up to what was the real solution of the difficulty. In his opinion the Government had the solution if they would only apply it. The solution was to be found in through bookings. He quite believed that the hon. members for Gape Town and Port Elizabeth would not be prepared to advocate that for one minute. He wished to inform the House that the system of through bookings was in vogue to-day in Germany. He strongly urged the Government to gather all the freight together and then make a contract. If they did that they would have an even freight market in this country, and that seemed to be a practical solution of the whole question. He had been looking up recent legislation in the Cape Colony, and he found that they had been legislating against the ox-wagon competition. That was practically the system he would apply. To put it in plain English, they gave a rebate over the railways to those who whipped on the through rates. When they established the through bill of lading, the Government would have got all the freight of the country into their own hand. When they had got that they could go to anybody—it might be the present people—and say they wanted a contract for the whole of the freight of South Africa.

That would be a monopoly.

said that it would be a monopoly under Government control. He was simply applying the principle of State-owned steamers, and in place of State-owned steamers was putting the Government in the position of a contractor if the Government wanted to sub-contract they could, and it might be called a monopoly, but there was one thing he was certain of, and that was, that they would get lower freights. He was certain that only the amount of capital necessary for the trade would be employed, and the result would be that the people would get even rates all through, and there would be a considerable saving. That, he believed, was the real solution of the whole thing. Of course, it might be difficult. When the Minister said he would take gold and feathers, he (the speaker) said: Why not take wool; why not take mealies; why not take everything? It was within the Government’s power. He thought the answer to the combination was this: “The rebate system has been an excellent weapon for you; you have shown us what you can do with rebates, and we, in our turn, will also use the rebates as our weapon.” He said so because the Government were in a unique position compared with other countries. They had State-owned railways, and the bulk of goods that came to this country were taken over the railways, and that, to his mind, was the solution of the difficulty. As a matter of fact, the through rates were in force to-day on the South African Railways. He saw by the General Manager’s report that the through rate was in operation in the case of mealies and citrus fruit. He believed that through booking was an excellent thing. Perhaps they might hit up against some of the smaller interests, but in a big question like this, one had got to look not only at the position of merchants, but at the position of the consumers and the general interests of the country. To sum up the whole position, be thought the thanks of the House were due to the Government for bringing in this Bill. He thought the solution would be found, not in the abolition of the rebates, but in the adoption of his suggestions regarding through bookings and rates, because then the Government would have absolute control of the whole freight of the country.

said that after listening to the speech of the hon. member who had just spoken, he hardly knew on which side he (the hon. member) was going to vote. Well, he wished to mention one or two points. There had been a great deal of talk about the development of the resources of South Africa and the means of communication but he had not heard a single voice raised in; favour of the reduction of the rates charged in South Africa for inland telegrams. He thought that if they wanted to develop the country, the more they developed the internal communications the better. The time had arrived when this country was able to have sixpenny telegrams. The main question they had to discuss on the Bill was the question of rebates, and he could not help thinking that the suggestion, as put forward by the member for Georgetown, showed him clearly how little knowledge there was on this subject in the House, and how liable they were to try their hands in experimental legislation. What was going to happen if they employed certain shipowners to have certain ships at different ports—which they must do before the trade was there—if there was not enough trade for those ships? Was the Government going to act as a philanthropic dry nurse to those shipowners? Undoubtedly the Government would put themselves into a most precarious position if they were bound to make good any losses those shipowners might incur. He did not want to go into the question as to how these combines came into existence; but he would simply say that it was an ordinary business proposition that people combined to protect themselves. From a careful study of the Royal Commission’s report, he was driven to the conclusion that certain complaints made against the shipping companies dealing with the South African trade had been found to be well founded; and in so far as in them lay, he thought it was their duty, to do away with any reasonable and well-founded grounds of complaint against the shipping companies dealing with this country. But if they, in their endeavours to do that, were going to jeopardise the future of this country, and, incidentally, endanger the supremacy of British shipping in some degree, he must admit that he would not be a party to it. It had been thrown out as a suggestion that the Government might run a line of steamers of its own. At present the scheme seemed too sketchy, and he thought that it was a most hazardous thing for this Government, An any sort of way, to suggest that this country, which did not own two ships of 5,000 tons, should embark upon an enterprise of that sort, to start building a line of ships of its own. He would like to give a list of complaints that were found to be well founded by the Royal Commission as against the shipping, companies. There were changes in rates. That, they knew, was a matter of great disturbance to the Governments of South Africa shortly before Union. He would, ask why those changes were made. The shipping companies were being pressed by Natal to give them certain advantages which they said was only justice and their right, and which the rest of the Governments said was an unfair advantage against the other colonies. Incidentally that position was now impossible No company would now play off one of the colonies against the others, because all the railways were under one control. Another complaint which rather intimately affected the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was that the shipping companies adopted the Houston contract. The main complaint was this, that, after the Houston Line had ineffectually tried to break down the ring, the latter took over the contracts of the Houston Line, and carried goods for certain big shippers at a great deal below the rate they were charging other shippers. That was a curious instance of what might happen, and undoubtedly would happen, if the Government’s intentions were carried out, and they succeeded in breaking down the Conference Ring. As sure as they were, in that House, the shipping companies would be driven to make individual contracts with the shippers, and, of course, the bigger the shipper, the bigger freight he offered, the more rates he paid, the better contract he would get. In less than, he should say, five years, they would have the weaker shipowning companies driven off the road, and a combination by the stronger ones that survived, and another ring would be constituted in place of that which the Government was now trying to break. He would commend to the consideration of the House the report of both the majority and the minority of the Commission on this question. They both emphatically said that the only possible way to break the Conference in regard to the deferred re bate system was not by such a method as his hon. friend the Minister proposed, but, deliberately and emphatically making them illegal, and imposing penalties for breach of the law. He would ask his hon. friend. —was he prepared to do that, because the majority and minority of the Commission, in their report, emphatically said that you could only do it by declaring them illegal, and making penalties for a breach of your law? They both said that that could not be done. The proposed legislation was attempting to do by a side wind what had been found by a Commission of a high standing to be wrong. The question of the diversion of shipping in different parts of the Empire had been touched upon; it was for some central authority to legislate on important matters of that kind, but he would ask the House to hesitate before passing legislation, which might put very great disabilities in the way of British shipping, and might have evil results in other directions. He asked the Minister of Finance to deny that communications were made to other than British shipping lines with regard to the number of sailings they could make from Southampton or the Continent.

By you?

I will challenge him to deny it.

By you?

Not at all, by responsible persons in the Government. Proceeding, Mr. Struben said it was all very well for Parliament to say now that it did not much matter whether it took 17 or 19 days to do the passage. What was really at the back of this question was the freight on maize and he was afraid hon, members had been misled when they were told that if they were stiff enough in this matter, they would get a lower freight on maize. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that maize was being carried by the shipping companies at a non-paying rate for the last three years. This attempt to squeeze the company, and this desire to obtain facilities for the conveyance of maize at a low rate was not a fair way of tackling the question at all. If they were against the system of deferred rebate, the Government should come to the House with a Bill properly prepared to deal with the matter, but do not mislead the people with the idea that the Bill was one thing, when it was really another. Undoubtedly, the Government was in a very strong position, but if it really desired to deal with the question, why had not the recommendations of the Royal Commission been carried out? There had been no attempt whatever to deal with the complaints in the way suggested by the Royal Commission. Now, with regard to these mealies, the Hon. the Minister of Finance practically said that the Conference lines were trying to throttle industries. Well, if any man could prove that to him, he would be pleased to be converted; hut it was his firm conviction that the company had been carrying mealies at a non-paying rate. Merchants and producers should form an association for their own protection in the same way as the shipping companies had formed one for their protection. Seeing that the time was so late, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was negatived,

said he had listened very carefully to the debate, and he had not been convinced that there was any necessity for the inclusion of this clause-in the Bill. He would not support it.

Mr. J. Searle rose to speak, but

pointed out that the hon. member had already spoken.

then put the question, and the motion for the second reading was agreed to, the committee stage being set down for next Monday.