from J. P. Kruger, pensioner under the late Cape Government until September 1899, when pension was stopped.

Grant of a gratuity to the widow of Constable Burton, Transvaal Police, killed on duty on 7th July, 1910.

Annual Report of the Geological Commission 1909 (Cape).

as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Poortje Township, and moved: That the report be printed and considered on Monday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That leave be granted to the Select. Committee on the Irrigation Bill to bring up an amended Bill.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the House at its rising to-morrow adjourn until Saturday, the 15th inst., at 10 o’clock a.m., Government business to have precedence.

seconded.

Will the Prime Minister give us some idea as to what business he proposes to take? My hon. friends on both sides of the House naturally desire to make arrangements—

It is very difficult for me to say what day we shall break up. The financial business before the House must be finished, which will take at least ten to twelve days. We have taken eight or nine days to deal with the Estimates of but three of the Ministers, and the Estimates of the seven others still require to be dealt with. The Railway Estimates and other financial matters still remain, and all these things must be passed. Then there are certain Bills which the Government is desirous of going on with—the Loan Bill, Construction of Railways Bill, Audit Bill, Miners’ Phthisis Bill, and several other matters. It seems there is no possible chance of adjourning this month. I am not prepared to state what matters we shall decide will have to stand over, but the Government is desirous of proceeding with certain measures.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the following resolutions: (1) That for the purpose of meeting the cost of certain public works and services there shall be raised a loan not exceeding in the whole the sum of £4,565,275 1s. 3d.; (2) that for the purpose of exercising certain powers to raise moneys on loan which were granted by the late Legislatures of the Cape of Good Hope, Natal and the Orange River Colony, and which were not exercised at the 30th May, 1910, amounting to £4,530,749 5s. 7d., the provisions of any law passed during the present session, declaring the terms and conditions applicable to loans authorised to be raised, shall be deemed to apply; (3) that for the purpose of redeeming the floating debts of the Cape of Good Hope, Natal, and the Orange River Colony outstanding at the 30th day of May, 1910, there shall be applied out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the surplus revenues of the Union at the 31st May, 1910, not exceeding in the whole the sum of £1,477,000; and (4) that for the purpose of consolidating the balance of floating debts after deduction of the sum of £1,477,000 aforesaid, there may be issued stock or securities in accordance with the provisions of any law passed during the present session declaring the terms and conditions applicable to loans authorised to be raised.

seconded.

stated that in regard to the first resolution, he would move that the amount be reduced by £339,071. He thought that only the first resolution of the four was of outstanding importance; the remaining ones were also highly necessary, but he did not conceive that it would involve any serious discussion in the House. If the House agreed to the resolution, he would propose that it at once go into Committee of Ways and Means; and the committee would be better able to criticise the proposals of the Government in that matter. Resolution No. 2 was merely a revival of the borrowing powers which had been created in three of the colonies prior to Union, but which had not been exercised. In resolutions 3 and 4 it was proposed to ask the authority of Parliament to apply the balances of the Consolidated Revenue Fund towards the reduction of the total debt.

said that Mr. Hull was following a course here which was unusual to them in the Cape. He had moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means, and in that committee they would examine these various proposals in detail, which would subsequently be brought before the House in three separate Bills—the Railway Bill, the General Loans Bill, and a Bill for the amount of loan money which was to be expended during the current year—and he took it that Mr. Hull did not want to have three separate discussions that session on these items; and he did not think that was a convenient course either. The course followed in the Cape had been to avoid that course altogether, and go into Committee of Ways and Means, but to bring in a Railway Bill and consider the details in committee; and if it were a Loan Bill, a similar course was followed. He ventured to put it to hon. members on both sides of the House that they could most conveniently discuss the details when the House went into committee on the Bills. That would be the most business-like course to follow. (Hear, hear.) He would recommend—whatever his recommendation was worth—that they should take the committee stage more or less as a formality.

said that the practice upon the question of loans had been rather confused in the past in the old Cape House of Assembly, and he thought it wise to suggest that under Rule 161 these proposals for loans should originate in Committee of Ways and Means. The House was quite at liberty to discuss the details of the Bill.

And amend them?

Yes.

But you cannot add.

said that before they went into committee he would like to express his disappointment at the Minister for moving a reduction of £539,000; and he would suggest that that amount should be utilised for the construction of railways in parts of the Union where they were badly wanted. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Minister would drop the reduction when they were in committee.

Going into committee now does not bind us?

The practice in the past has been that all the discussion has taken place in committee on these Loan Bills; but the House will have full liberty to deal with the Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the committee was given leave to report to-day.

moved a resolution to the effect that the committee recommend the loan proposals as reduced to £4,224,204 1s. 3d.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the report be considered.

seconded.

said he understood that if this were adopted they would have no power afterwards to alter the schedule at all.

Certainly.

said that there was an item in the Loan Bill which was not as large as it ought to be. He wanted to refer to the way in which the school loans were dealt with. The item at present was something like £31,000.

No private member is competent to move an increase.

said that he was not going to move, but he was only going to draw attention to the deficiencies of the Government in regard to this matter. There was £31,000 in this Bill of £4,250,000 odd for school loans. He knew that there was £200,000 on the Supplementary Estimates for school purposes. He maintained that that was not sufficient for the purposes they had in view. He was sorry that, in addition to this £290,000 which was down on the Supplementary Estimates, there was not a further sum of £200,000 on the Loan Bill for school purposes, as far as this colony was concerned. They had been held up in the development of educational facilities in Cape Colony for the last three or four years for want of money. Plans had been drawn and preparations made for buildings, and then, when they came to the last point, they could get no money. They had had no grant of money, as a matter of fact, since 1909. The “Education Gazette” of March 31 stated that “the most pressing need of our educational work at the present time is funds for new school buildings. The Superintendent-Genera1 of Education, at a recent ceremony in Cape Town, drew attention to the number of school buildings, which, through lack of funds, had accumulated during the last two and a half years, the cost for the completion of which would amount, approximately, to £400,000.” The Superintendent-General pointed out further that there were plans ready at the present moment, ready for going on, involving £284,000. Those schemes could be started at once. He was informed by the department that the applications made up to the present time exceded £400,000. In the Cape Division they required to fit them out anything like reasonably in regard to school accommodation £147,000 for white children alone. The Cape School Board had borrowed on their own credit loans during the last few years to the amount of £32,000, simply to keep things going. They had one area where they could not apply compulsory education, because they could not supply the necessary accommodation. There was the increase to be coped with. No effort was being made even to meet deficiencies. He hoped the Minister would consider this matter, and see whether he could not put on the Loans Bill a sum of £200,000 as well as the £200,000 already on the Supplementary Estimates.

referred to the overcrowding of schools under the Kimberley School Board. Kimberley, he said, required £50,000 for its immediate needs, and it was clear that under the present proposals of the Government, it would not get anything like that sum. The Board had been pressed to introduce the compulsory principle, and now, when they had done that, they found themselves confronted with a threat from the Borough Council of proceedings for overcrowding of the schools under their charge,

said the item for irrigation and settlement was altogether inadequate. He felt strongly on this point, because it was necessary to put the poor whites who had gravitated to the towns back on the land, and in order to be able to do that, a large sum would be required. According to schedules E and F, the total expenditure on settlement and irrigation would amount to £163,380 for settlement, and £493,579 for irrigation up to 31st March, 1912, totalling £656,959. The estimated expenditure under the loan, after the date mentioned, would be £52,904 on the two objects. The grand total, therefore, amounted to £709,863. From this they had to deduct the amounts already expended up to 31st March, 1911, viz., £94,627 for settlement and £158,462 for irrigation, leaving a balance of £456,744, made up as follows: £68,753 for settlement, and £335,117 for irrigation up to 31st March, 1912, the remainder being intended for works after that date. The amounts looked large, but in Australia the Minister of Finance was authorised to spend £500,000 annually on the services in question, whereas the £456,744 was loan money, which meant that they would have to wait for another loan before there could be any further expenditure. A good many applicants were waiting, and he had no hesitation in saying that the expenditure was too small. Before proceeding, he wished to point out that he was not speaking provincially, but in the interests of the whole of the Union. The Union Government should appoint a Director of Land Settlement, in furtherance of their declared policy, but he would at present confine himself to the Transvaal. From the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan of £5,000,000, settlement and irrigation were to receive £600,000 —£450,000 for land settlement, and £150,000 for irrigation. The expenses in connection with that raising of the loan amounted to £57,151 in respect of that part of the loan, leaving a net balance of £542,849, to be divided as follows: settlement £407,137 and irrigation £135,712. The Auditor-General, in his report on the Accounts of the Transvaal said that, until 31st May, 1910 £258,544 had been spent on settlement and £21,604 on irrigation. The unexpended balance on the latter date was, therefore. £262,701. Now, assuming that all the figures mentioned in the White-book referred to the Transvaal, there would still be a sum to be accounted for of £32,838. However, the money would not all be spent in the Transvaal, because it was proposed to spend part of the amount on land purchase in the Cape. The White-book showed that £29,396 was to be spent on Transvaal land settlement, and £200,467 on Transvaal irrigation. Hence, there was a balance on loan funds, in respect of Transvaal settlement and irrigation, on 31st May, 1910, amounting to £262,701. Of this amount it was proposed to spend £229,863, including the amount to be expended in the Cape, exact figures regarding which were not yet available. That left the shortfall of £32,838 previously referred to, and though he had searched for the amount, he had not been able to find it. He accordingly asked the Minister what he intended doing with the sum in question?

said he understood that there was the sum of £31,000 unexpended balances, for school purposes, in addition to the sum of £200,000 which was down on the Estimates. Owing to the increased number of pupils attending the East London schools, as the result of compulsory education, the schools were very much overcrowded, and at Amalinda there was a danger of the school being closed down, because the tenancy of the present building was expiring, and no other building was available.

said the whole question of financing of education was a function of the Provincial Council. Still, he was glad these difficulties and discontent had arisen, because it might hasten the time when education would be brought, as it ought to be, under the Union Parliament. He favoured the Transvaal policy of putting an end to borrowing money for school buildings. They Should equip the country with school buildings out of current revenue. It was difficult to jump about from one system to another; but while they were changing he thought Government might have made provision for school buildings in districts where they were greatly needed, and where compulsion could not be enforced because of the lack of accommodation.

said that if every Province were going to insist at once on all their requirements, he did not know where it was going to end. He hoped the Financial Relations Commission would soon come to a settlement on these questions; then every Province would have power to borrow money to carry on the administration.

said there had been a tendency to spend too much on showy, pretentious buildings, and to neglect the true work of education. To some extent the Education Department had been responsible for that, because when villages came forward with a scheme for modest buildings suited to their circumstances, the department had forced them to spend? lot more on big buildings. In this way the funds had been crippled, and the amount available to be spent on the real education of the children had been seriously diminished It was a mistake to put up in a Karoo village school buildings which would be suitable for London or Brighton. He did not agree that it was wise to take primary education from under the control of the Provincial Councils. The conditions of the Provinces were entirely different, and it would be a real misfortune if they were to do anything by means of which education would become, more than it was now, a political question. By bringing education on to the floor of the Union Parliament, they would be making fuel for the political fire. The true basis of education would be lost sight of. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that on the recent Cape Education Commission he appointed the best men he could get, but he was afraid they had followed wandering lights. It was much easier to get into the political groove than into the educational groove. Well, that Commission had not reported yet. Where it was he did not know. He mentioned that primary education was essentially a Provincial matter, and not a matter to be wrangled over as a political question on the floor of that House. He wondered where Scottish education would have been if it had been wrangled over the floor of the House of Commons. Why, in this country, should they centralise everything? As sure as they brought education into the Union Parliament, they were going to make a political question of it. Now, he was one of those who hoped this borrowing system for school buildings would be continued. He hoped the result of the investigations of the Commission which was now sitting about Provincial relations would be that the Province would eventually be so far brought into unison that people would see that it was their duty to provide for the education of their children on the lines of the New Zealand system, where there was a grant per capita—so much for every child in each Province.

said he quite agreed that they should get the Minister of Finance to increase the loans for school buildings where they were inadequate. He agreed that the policy should be to put up as many schools as possible, and not to go in for elaborate buildings. He thought that hon. members on both sides of the House recognised that the policy of the Government ought to be to see that there was a school within three miles of the door of every child which required to be educated. If the Government embarked on that policy, it would, of course, have to put up buildings as cheaply as possible. Instead of spending money on architectural effects, it would have to put up simple buildings with, of course, proper sanitation and proper lighting. He thought the Minister of Finance should consider the advisability of increasing his borrowing power in regard to educational matters. He did not think that any section would be opposed to the Government being urged to meet legitimate eases which unfortunately existed to a very large extent at the present moment.

said he agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that they would not have had so many schools in this country if they had not adopted the borrowing policy, and he did not think it would be good to depend entirely upon the good graces of the Minister of Finance in the way of putting money upon the Estimates from year to year. It was their duty to do the best they could for the sake of education, because they would never make a country of South Africa unless its people were properly educated. With regard to the cost of buildings, he said that the Cape School Board could not be charged with extravagance in regard to the Salt River School. It was built to accommodate 800 pupils at a cost of only £13,000, as compared with £37,000 which was proposed to be spent elsewhere in accommodating 150 pupils. He thought it was a had policy for the Minister to reduce the facilities for the erection of school buildings. Throughout the various Provinces the School Boards had been compelled to spend much money in maintenance. In the Cape the School Board was compelled to hire dwelling-houses at high rentals. If, however, it could get money on loan, the interest would be very much less than the amount it spent on rentals. He hoped that before the House went into committee the Minister of Finance would give him an assurance that he would increase the grant towards school buildings. So far as the Cape Province was concerned, half of the interest would be paid out of school fees. At present they had schools which were a disgrace and a scandal, and it was time that things were remedied.

said that he had had quite a new experience that afternoon. Up to now he had been held up by hon. members’ opposite, and especially by the Cape representatives, as being the most extravagant fellow that had ever occupied a seat on the Treasury bench. Now they were urging him to put more and more money upon the Estimates. Therefore, what came of all their talk about economy? He was not disappointed with the speeches made, because he had always suspected that there was a certain class who were never satisfied with what they got. (A VOICE: “But we don’t get it.”) He was disappointed with one thing, and that was that hon. members who came from the Cape Province had not considered what the Union Government had done since the 31st of May towards aiding education in the Cape Province. He said that the Union Government had treated the Province of the Cape of Good Hope far more generously in the matter of grants for educational purposes than it had treated the other Provinces. In fact, it had been far more generously treated than it was before Union in this respect. He had expected a word of appreciation from hon. members from the Gape, or at least from one of them, for what the Union Government had done. But no word of appreciation was offered, and the speeches made were calculated to mislead the House and the public generally. (Cries of “Oh.”) He wished to repeat that more money had been spent in the cause of education in the Cape Province by the Union Government than was ever given in the Cape prior to Union. Did hon. members know that he proposed to devote £200,000 towards the schools of the Cape Province? Did they know that there was also a sum of £165,000, the major portion of which would be devoted to educational purposes? He did not think that hon. members knew what they were talking about. (Laughter.) He would tell them that the amount to be devoted for educational purposes, school purposes, in the Cape Province for the coming year could not be spent. They would find that at the end of March, 1912, a considerable sum would still remain unexpended. He was sorry to see this display of pettiness. The other three Provinces had taken a better line; they had a better claim to consideration. He wished to repeat that the Cape Province had been singled out for far more generous treatment than it had received previously. He also wished to repeat that the money provided on the Estimates was more than sufficient, and would not be spent during the year. He objected to all this nagging on the part of some of the representatives of the Cape Province.

The motion was agreed) to, and the resolutions were adopted.

moved the second reading of the Bill. He said the whole object of the Bill was to provide machinery for the collection of stamp duties and fees payable, and he thought that machinery could best be discussed in committee.

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

objected to a motion that the House go into committee on the Bill.

Whereupon the committee stage was set down for to-morrow (Thursday).

said that he thought it included cigars.

said that it had been taken over from the other law. Dealing with what Sir Edgar Walton had previously said about no provision being made for imprisonment without hard labour, he said that there was no similar provision in other similar measures. There was no such provision in a Customs Act introduced by Sir Edgar Walton.

But that was for a case of fraud.

This is a case of fraud too, if a man does not put the stamp on.

read the definition of “cigarettes” in the Cape Act, and said that there was a great difference between it and the present definition. He agreed with Sir Edgar Walton. He went on to say that the Customs Union included Rhodesia, and that Bill was not going to operate there at all; and unless some other provision was made, it would be a very easy matter to import cigarettes from Rhodesia without a stamp having being put on.

replied that he was negotiating with the Rhodesian Government.

said that that might be all very well, but unless this was made clear, the Rhodesian manufacturer would take advantage of the law as passed. “Surtax” was put in such a way that a court of law might hold that the law dealt with articles which paid Customs duty, which Rhodesian articles did not. He thought that the Minister ought to put in “imported by rail or sea.”

What about importation by ox-wagon or cart, then? I don’t see any difficulty about it. Importation means importation into the Union.

moved that the words “into the Union” be added.

moved that the word “articles” be left out, and “cigarettes” inserted.

These amendments were agreed to.

moved that after the words “Customs duty” the words “if any” be added.

This was agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 were ordered to stand over.

New clause 5,

moved a new clause 5 as follows: “In, the case of cigarettes held in stock at the commencement of this Act by any person who holds the same for purposes of sale, the duty or surtax shall be payable by that person by means of stamps affixed to the tin, box, package, or other immediate container, as if he were the manufacturer or importer, unless the same be stock held in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope and bear the stamp duty required by Act No. 12 of 1909 of that Province.”

stated that the new clause seemed to be practically the same as the proviso to clause 3.

said that when he came to clause 3 he intended to move out the proviso.

pointed out that the Cape Act only referred to cigarettes in a retail dealer’s shop.

The clause was agreed to.

stated that an England now the practice was where a person was well known, and had a fixed address, not to enforce the penalty at once, where the alternative was imprisonment.

You must leave it to the discretion of the Magistrate who tries the case.

The Magistrate really has no discretion unless you give it to him under the Bill.

This is hardly the proper place to deal with a matter of that kind.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 6, Conditions of removal of cigarettes from licensed premises,

moved: To add at the end of sub-section (1): “and no person shall sell or expose for sale cigarettes, except in unbroken containers”: and in line 49, after “premises” to insert “or sells or exposes for sale”.

moved in line 41—which reads: “From and after the commencement of this Act no person shall remove any cigarettes or permit the same to be removed unless, etc.”—to insert “wilfully” after “shall” and “for the purposes of sale” after “remove,”

said that if he were to accept the amendment he might as well withdraw the Bill altogether.

asked whether it was the intention of the department to do away with the cumbersome system adopted in the Cape for the cancellation of stamps? He thought it would be much more convenient if the English practice in reference to patent medicine stamps were adopted, and the stamp duty affixed to the seal of the packet, so that the stamp would ‘be cancelled when the seal was broken.

said that the Government took powers in regard to this matter under section 13.

thought the stamp should be affixed to the box in such a way that when it was opened the stamp would be broken. He believed the Minister was going to use those beautiful stamps he (had prepared for the Union.

We will have both our heads on them. (Laughter.)

Mr. Botha’s amendment was withdrawn, and the Minister’s was adopted.

moved the omission of words requiring the retailors to keep books or accounts showing their transactions in cigarettes.

explained that the object was to trace the cigarettes, but not to worry the retailer.

feared that under the clause the sale of a packet of ten cigarettes would have to be recorded,

and Mr. M. ALEXANDER (Cape Town, Castle) supported the amendment, and the latter moved the omission of the words “in the form prescribed by regulation.”

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was agreed to, Mr. Alexander’s amendment being withdrawn.

On clause 10, Power of entry on premises, and penalties for resisting the same,

moved an amendment requiring that an officer entering and searching premises should be specially authorised to do so to the Commissioner of Excise.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved that the authority be in writing.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 12, Burden of proof,

held that the burden of proof should be, as in other cases, on the Crown. It was wrong to presume a man to be guilty. He moved that the clause be deleted.

supported the amendment. The tendency nowadays seemed to be to make a man prove his innocence. The police officials ought to be able to bring guilt home to a man.

said there were certain kinds of offences in which it was necessary to put the burden of proof on the accused. He regarded this as one of them, and supported the clause.

said the facts on which a prosecution of this kind was based was peculiarly within the knowledge of the person charged, and the onus rightly rested on him.

said a similar clause existed in the Stock Diseases Bill. Yet, none of the lawyers of the House objected when that Bill was under discussion. He supported be clause.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 13, Regulations,

said that under the clause the Governor General would have power to exempt cigarettes that were removed from any bonded warehouse to places outside the Union, but he had no power to exempt cigarettes which remained in a bonded warehouse. He moved to amend Regulation (a.) by exempting cigarettes stored in any bonded ware house in the Union so long as they are so stored.

The amendment was agreed to.

referred to a telegram which he had received from wholesale tobacco and cigarette dealers in Johannesburg, urging that provision should be made for stamps to be fixed on the outside of airtight covers in which cigarettes were imported instead of their being required to open the tins, which would lead to damage through the exposure of the contents. He hoped that the Minister would devise same scheme under section 13 so as to make that loss as small as possible.

asked who was to put the stamp on in the case of imported cigarettes, because the Bill only spoke of the manufacturer affixing the stamps.

pointed out that subsection (f) had been inserted to meet the point.

suggested, in regard to this, that the Minister should take power under another subsection to provide that, in case of imported cigarettes, the stamps should be affixed at the place of manufacture.

Verbal amendments, moved by the Minister of Finance and Mr. Jagger, were agreed to.

On clause 3, duty on cigarettes manufactured in the Union,

moved the omission of the proviso.

This was agreed to.

On clause 4, surtax on cigarettes entered for consumption in the Union,

said that it did not sufficiently provide for the manner in which the surtax was to be levied. He had not known that it should be levied by means of stamps at all.

reported that the committee toad considered the Cigarette Tax Bill, and he asked leave to bring up a report on the following day.

Bluebook, Transvaal Native Affairs Department, 1st July, 1909, to 31st May, 1910.

moved that the Estimates for the Minister of Education be postponed.

Why?

As I far as I personally am concerned, I would it like to go on, but there are certain reasons, which I need not particularise now, which make it desirable that I should not go on.

The vote was accordingly allowed to stand over.

said that he wanted to bring to the notice of the House the position of the Secretary of Finance, who was drawing £1,500 a year, and who was also the director of a certain bank

The National Bank.

I did not specify it. Of course, everyone knows it is the National Bank. What I am objecting to altogether is that an official of the South African Government should be a bank director. There are certain grave Objections to that—firstly, it brings the prestige of the Government into the bank’s affairs; secondly, if anything happened to that blank a certain amount of blame would be attached to the Government; and, thirdly, it gives this bank an undine advantage in competitions with exchanges, and the hike.

said that toe found, on page 171 of the report of the finance accounts of the Transvaal, that £252 4s. 5d. had been paid towards the cost of the sequestration and administration of sixteen estates. On page 172 he found that £525 toad been paid to Messrs. Dyer and Bosnian for agency fees; while a sum of £500 had been paid to Oscar Schuurman, He would draw attention to the fact that this money had been deposited with the Republican Government in 189’8, and the amount had been paid out some time in 1910. It seemed to him a strange thing that this sum should have been paid out at all, seeing that it was a debt of the old Republican Government. On page 170, in section 6, they saw that there was an expenditure of £44,250, the purchase price of certain even for the proposed Union buildings; but the site toad proved unsuitable, and a museum and library toad now been erected on part of the ground. The point that appeared to him was that it was not within his knowledge that this £44,050 was authorised, and that the abandonment of this particular purchase; was also authorised; and, furthermore, that the authorisation took place for the erection of a museum and library on this spot.

said that as to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jogger) in reference to the position of the Secretary of Finance on the directorate of the National Bank in the Transvaal, the Government of the Transvaal were large shareholders in the bank, and it was felt that they should he represented on the management. His hon. friend, he gathered, thought that the Government, being large shareholders, should he represented; hut he understood him (Mr. Jagger) to say they ought not to he represented by Government officials. Of course, there was a good deal to be said for the hon. member’s point of view; hut he submitted that there was also a sound case for the representation of the Government by an official, so long as the appointment did not interfere with his ordinary duties. He did not know, by reason of the Government having this representation, the bank could possibly obtain an advantage over the other banks. Tenders were invited in every case, and the best tender in each case was accepted. In regard to the questions raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) arising out of the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, he (Mr. Hull) was placed somewhat at a disadvantage, and he could hardly he expected to carry all these things in his head; but he should have thought that all these questions Were questions usually dealt with and investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee had not yet had an opportunity of investigating them, but they would have such opportunity before this session came to a close. In regard to the disbursements in connection with the sequestration of estates, he could not tell how that occurred, but he presumed that it was money expended in the ordinary course of business. It did not follow that all these sequestrations were initiated by the Treasury. In regard to the payment of £500 to a man called Schuurman, the hon. member suggested that inasmuch as the present Government were not responsible for the debts of the old Transvaal Government, they should not have paid this sum of £500, but it was a sum of money deposited by the concessionaire with the old Transvaal Government. An amount of £500 was also paid to Mr. Dyer. That was in connection with certain services rendered on behalf of the Government in Pretoria. In regard to the ground abandoned, that was one of the purchases in respect of which the £500 was paid.

asked whether there was any truth in the rumour that the Central Store, Bloemfontein, was to be transferred to Pretoria?

asked what the intentions of the Government were in respect of the majority report of the Select Committee on the Mines Sick Benefit Fund?

asked whether it was the Government’s intention to dispose of its holding in the National Bank as soon as possible? He said he did not see any objection to the Government being represented on the Board as long as they held a share, but the said it was unsatisfactory that they should hold a share. (Hear, hear.) He had an offer while he was holding office in the Transvaal for the Government’s shares, but he did not feel justified at the time in accepting it. He thought it would be advisable that these shares should be disposed of when the opportunity occurred.

said that the information given by the Minister in regard to the expenditure of the £44,000 was very meagre. He would like to know who authorised the utilisation of this particular ground for a museum and library.

asked what arrangements the Government in tended to make in regard to actuarial assistance required from time to time in connection with the Estimates?

said that, I they looked at the Land Bank, where the Government put up the whole of the money, he thought they would find that he majority of the directors were not Government officials. He thought that where the Treasurer especially had to deal with all the various banking institutions in South Africa, it would be better if he were not a director of one bank. He agreed that if they had a large holding they should have a representative on the bank, but he thought it would be better if they had some outside person, or not an official directly representative of the Government.

said that, as to the National Bank, if the offer received by his hon. friend, when he was in charge of the Transvaal, were repeated to him he would get rid of the shares. If a suitable opportunity came of disposing of those shares, advantage would be taken of it. In regard to the question of the Mines Sick Benefit Fund Committee, he had not had an opportunity of considering their report. As to the question of an actuary, at the present moment the Government paid a retainer of 100 guineas a year to an actuary to advise the Treasury from time to time upon certain distinct matters that came before them. He had no intention of appointing an official actuary. He thought the better plan, perhaps, would be to consult actuaries from time to time as occasion required. As to the Central Store, Bloemfontein, nothing had been decided about that yet, so that the information about the proposal to remove the stores to Pretoria was inaccurate; but he might say that this question of centralising and dealing economically with all these various stores scattered about all over the Union was receiving the attention of the Government.

asked if the Minister could give any information as to the control the Government had, if any, in the policy and working of the Premier Mine and the gold mining concerns leased under the new system?

said that the Government had no say in directing the policy of these mines. The Act cast upon the working partner the responsibility for the working of the mines-With regard to the examination of the accounts of these mines, however, the supervision exercised by the Government was most strict.

said that with reference to the representation of the Government on the National Bank directorate, he thought it was most undesirable from every point of view that the Government’s representative should be the permanent head of the Treasury. It stood to reason that that gentleman could not do his duty at once to the bank and to the Government. It would be his duty as director of the bank to get the best terms he could from the Government, and it would be his duty, as head of the Treasury, to get the best terms from the bank. Then another point was that in the Treasury he would get information as to the quotations made to the Government by other banks, by which he could not help being influenced when he was in the bank directors’ room doing she bank’s business. If the Government wished to retain its interest in the bank, let them get anyone but the head of the Treasury to represent them on the Board of Directors.

said that the bank shares would, under the Public Debt Commissioners’ Bill, be vested in the Commissioners. No doubt the Commissioners would: deal differently with the question of representation on the bank directorate.

said that if the Government wanted money, they would invite tenders from the different banks. The tenders would be opened on a certain day, and then and there one of them would be accepted. It would be impossible, therefore, for the figures to be given to this particular hank, so as to enable it to send in a lower tender.

said he had non suggested that. The point was that the head of the Treasury had information as to all the quotations made by other banks, and the bank of which he was a director would have an unfair advantage of the others. Perhaps, however, what Mr. Orr had said met the case for the present.

asked what was being done with regard to the Transvaal Auditor-General’s report, relative to certain actions of Land Bank directors?

asked for information concerning the auditing of the Cooperative Societies’ accounts.

said he would get the information desired by the hon. members.

asked what action it was proposed to take with regard to the companies trading down here in land bonds, cattle bonds, and the like? In 1909, an Act was passed in the Cape requiring such companies to make a deposit of £5,000 with the Treasurer.

said he would find out whether the deposits had been made.

asked if any steps were being taken to make refunds to people who had paid double licences for the sale of aerated waters?

said the practice was that when money was paid in error, it was not recoverable, otherwise Government would never reach finality in its accounts. He had given instructions that aerated water licence money paid by licensed victuallers during the present calendar year should be refunded, but there would be no refund in the cases of licences paid in error during the previous year.

referred to the increase by four of inland receivers of revenue. Hitherto the work was done by the Civil Commissioners. At Kimberley a receiver had been appointed at a salary of £600, to do work formerly carried out by the Civil Commissioner and a clerk drawing £240 a year. Would the position of the Civil Commissioners be affected by these new appointments?

replied that the Civil Service Commissioners had advised that the collection of revenue should be entrusted to a special department, and that had been done in the Transvaal with exceedingly good results. At the establishment of Union, the Government thought the system should be extended. The evasions of revenue that would be detected would more than recompense for the additional cost. In the Cape, however, the old system still continued, but in certain large centres such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and East London, special collectors had been appointed. He thought time would justify the new departure. The same thing was done in England.

England has no such thing as a Civil Commissioner.

asked if, as the result of the new arrangement, the staffs of the Civil Commissioners affected had been reduced?

replied that there had been no increase in the establishment, but merely an exchange of clerks.

moved that the vote stand over. He thought it would be better to discuss the vote after the Audit Bill had been considered.

said he thought the committee should consider the vote now, because if the Audit Bill were passed, and it said that the salary of the ’Controller and Auditor-General should be £1,500, £1,800, or £2,000, the Government would be bound by the terms of the Bill.

said he was satisfied so long as the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter on its merits.

The motion that the vote stand over was negatived.

then moved that the salary of the Controller and Auditor-General be reduced by £500, from £2,000 to £1,500. He said that they had had certain correspondence laid on the table with reference to the Auditor-General’s salary, and in the ordinary way it would have been his duty to support the Government in ratifying what had been done. But since the appointment was made certain occurrences had taken place, and had been brought to the notice of the House, and he thought it devolved upon hon. members to decide in accordance with their own dictates as to whether the Controller and Auditor-General was a fit and proper person to continue to occupy the position he at present held. (Cries of “Oh, oh.”) Well, this was the way the matter struck him. That gentleman had made certain remarks in this report which had since been proved to be unfounded. He took it that it was the duty of the Auditor-General to bring to the notice of the House whatever he found to be incorrect. He should exercise that power absolutely unfettered, but he (the speaker) took it that it was not the duty of the Auditor-General to cast a slur upon any individual, whether he be the highest or the lowest in the land, unless he was absolutely satisfied that he was justified in so doing. The point he wished to make was that the Auditor-General had made a mistake. He had admitted that he was in the wrong, and as far as the correspondence was concerned, there had been no attempt at apology. There was only the acknowledgment to the effect that he had committed an error. Under these circumstances it was the duty of members to decide whether they considered that that gentleman was a fit and proper person to occupy the position of Auditor-General. For that reason he moved the reduction.

said he hoped that the reduction would not be agreed to by the committee. He did not think it was wise for the committee to deal with the salary of an official like the Controller and Auditor-General. He was appointed at a certain salary by the Government, who had the right to do so, and now they were asked to reduce the salary. He thought that was a wrong thing to do. If his hon. friend who had moved in the matter thought that the Auditor-General had exceeded his duty, he had a proper way of dealing with the matter. That was, he could move in the House to remove him, but that, he (Mr. Merriman) thought, would be one of the most deplorable things that could happen. It would go forth to the world that, because the Auditor-General had thought fit to make his report and act without fear, favour, or prejudice, as they expected him to do, he should be turned out of office. No more terrible thing could take place. They must remember that the taxpayers looked to the Auditor-General to look after their interests, and he had to use his own discretion. If they could prove that he had done anything wrong, then they could legitimately table a motion that he be removed from his office. But to remove him in this way —he would not say in a back-handed way— was not right. As a rule, the Auditor-General’s salary was fixed by Act of Parliament, for the very special reason that it should not be tampered with; otherwise, it would be open any year for any party which objected to him to come to Parliament and move to reduce his salary. Anything worse could! not possibly be done. After all, the Auditor-General was not the servant of the Government; he was the servant of this House, and he was bound to bring to the notice of the House whatever he thought advisable in his report. He (Mr. Merriman) would deplore it most sincerely if a motion like the one proposed was carried, because it would strike at the feeling of security right through the Union, and outside of the Union too.

said he thought they could not disregard their moral obligations. It was agreed to pay the Auditor-General £2,000 a year, and he could not vote for either the report of the committee, which recommended that £1,500 should be made pensionable, or the motion moved by Mr. Stockenstrom. He would vote for the full amount of £2,000.

said that he would not like to keep the House long, but he thought he ought to say a few words in connection with that report. There was a question which was raised in it which concerned President Steyn and himself. As far as he himself was concerned, he would have left the matter where it was, but he felt it his duty towards President Steyn to say a few words. In the first place, he wanted to say that the money—£129, he believed it was— which the Auditor-General complained of had not been substantiated by proper vouchers or something to that effect—had been paid while President Steyn and himself were detained in Europe, because they could not get away until a certain day. The delegates were asked to stay to see what happened in regard to certain matters which were under consideration by the British Parliament, and dealt with by the British Government at the time. For that reason they did not stay in England, because they knew that these things were coming on four weeks later; and President Steyn and he had left for the Continent; and the other members went to other ’ places. As far as the Government were concerned, it benefited to a certain extent, because if they considered the amount which had been charged it came to something like £1 5s. a day, i.e., less than they could have lived for in London. As far as President Steyn was concerned, it was agreed on his going to Europe that Mrs. Steyn should accompany him, and that the journey should be paid for by the Government. He mentioned these things because a man of the status of the Auditor-General, who made it a rule to go into everything, and had all the papers before him, had not followed what he (General Hertzog) would have considered the proper way of dealing with the matter, to say the least of it. The; Auditor-General should have asked the Free State Cabinet for information. He must say he felt most indignant against a man like the Auditor-General—because the higher a man was in the Civil Service the more venomous became his attack—(Ministerial cheers and Opposition dissent)—the more painful and the more deadly became anything which he said against any man. That the Auditor-General should have done that without doing for a moment what foe (General Hertzog) was sure another man in his position would have done—or found out that the payments of these moneys had been properly confirmed by the Ministry of the day—was what he objected to. The matter had been laid before the Cabinet, and confirmed by it; and as far as President Steyn was concerned foe had never put in any claim for the money—(Ministerial cheers)—but they considered that it was their duty to pay the expenses. Concluding, General Hertzog said that he was sorry he had to say what he did, because he did not in any way want to influence the vote which was proposed; that was a matter which must be dealt with by the House, and he hoped it would be apart from what he had said. But he had felt it his bounden duty, in honour of a man who could not protect himself, and was not there to do so, to express his deepest feeling of regret that a man like the Auditor-General should have taken such a step as that.

said that he had the other day proposed that the Auditor-General’s salary should be reduced to £1,500 on the score of economy, and because he did not think any public servant should get more. He did not, however, agree with Mr. Merriman as to what he had said about the legality of the “contract,” because if they accepted what he said, it would do away with the control that Parliament had. The final decision should rest with Parliament. If the Auditor-General submitted a report in which he blamed anyone, and his statement was based on fact, be would certainly support him, but in the present instance the Auditor-General had made a mistake which he should not have made, and as a result, a wholly wrong impression had gone abroad. The Auditor-General had, it appeared, left it to Parliament to raise the salary provisionally agreed upon. If Parliament were entitled to increase the amount, surely it had a right to reduce it, but it would possess that right in any case. There was no idea of punishing a fearless critic, though that had been suggested.

said that what the Auditor-General had submitted was simply a statement; there was no attack upon anyone in that report. (VOICES: “Isn’t there?”) His hon. friends from the North were not accustomed to obtain such statements—as they were accustomed to obtain in the South. The official in question simply based everything on a statement of fact.

Not a fact here.

They must remember, when all was said and done, that the Auditor-General was a servant of that House and the taxpayer, and it would be an evil day for the country if they curtailed or reflected, in any shape or form, upon the report of the Auditor-General.

regretted that that subject should have been introduced to the notice of the House in that particular form, at that stage. The Public Accounts Committee had not, foe said, had the report of the Auditor-General before it, and be wanted to point out the inconvenience of a debate arising at that time, when such a report had not yet been considered; and when they would be prejudging upon inaccurate evidence what ought to be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. They had had a proposal to reduce the Auditor-General’s salary on other and entirely different grounds, when the Audit Bill was before the House. He had been an Auditor-General himself, as the House knew, and he hoped that he would convince those who had been unduly excited, Ministers among them, that as far as the present Auditor-General of the Union was concerned, nothing could have been further from his thoughts than to show animosity or venom against any member, or any Minister in that House. (Opposition cheers.)

in further remarks, pointed out that the Auditor-General had not all correspondence the details of all the votes of the various colonies in his own personal knowledge. As regarded the Orange Free State, Transvaal, and Natal, the material for these reports had accumulated under the eye and supervision of the Auditors-General of those Provinces. He must appeal to the House to consider the position of the Auditor-General at this time of stress, when the finances of the four Provinces had to be brought together, and when on the top of all this, there was before him a mass of material dealing with the accounts of each colony, of which he absolutely knew nothing himself. It might be said that he ought to have satisfied himself in regard to every item in every one of these reports. In normal times he would have satisfied himself, and be had taken the blame upon himself. He (Mr. Orr) did appeal to hon. members, whatever their feelings of resentment might be, and whatever feeling of irritation there might be in regard to the publication of these figures, that there could be no question of any animosity, of any venom, underlying the remarks made by the Auditor-General in his report. He had admitted fully and frankly by his letter that there were mistakes in that report. What more could they ask a high official to do? This vote was challenged on the Audit Bill, on the ground that the salary was too great for the office. (Hear, hear.) That evening this vote was challenged on the ground that the Auditor-General was unfit for his job. There could be no doubt that if they reduced that vote that evening, in his humble opinion, there was no choice for the Auditor-General but to place his resignation in the hands of Ministers to-morrow. That was the clear issue.

said he hoped that now this discussion, which was not a very pleasant one, and which did not add to the dignity of the committee, would be discontinued— (hear, hear)—and he hoped the hon. member who had moved the reduction would withdraw. (Hear, hear.) He thought there was a misapprehension on the part of some hon. members with regard to this matter. When the Audit Bill came before the House, if it was the feeling of some hon. members that the salary paid to the Auditor-General, quite apart from the present holder of the office, was too high, they could fix it in the Audit Bill, at any amount they thought fit. But that had nothing at all to do with the amount of the salary now upon the Estimates. That salary was promised to the present Auditor-General, and the Government would see that that amount was paid until Parliament decided otherwise, and that was a point to he dealt with in the Audit Bill. There was another aspect of this matter. If the motion were persisted in, and accepted, the Auditor-General would be compelled to place his resignation in the hands of the Government. Now, he could not conceive that the hon. members who had supported this motion, and who had spoken so strongly on the ‘subject, intended that for one moment, because if they did desire to get rid of the Auditor-General then the proper way to do it was to make a specific charge against him of failing to do his duty in some particular or another. That seemed to be the proper course to adopt. For these reasons, he hoped the motion would be withdrawn. (Hear, bear.)

said that undoubtedly the Auditor-General was a very able man, but certain remarks in his report had been felt very keenly by the people, and, although perhaps not purposely, Mr. Gurney certainly had hurt the feelings of a large body of people in this country by what he had said in reference to some of the most honoured men in the country. When a high official added something to actual facts they could not leave the matter where it was, even though it was an unpleasant one. Hon. members were very careful not to hurt the feelings of the coloured people. Did not the Dutch inhabitants of South Africa deserve to be considered when the head of the people— President Steyn—was attacked? The Auditor’s explanation had not removed the painful impression made. As he (Mr. Van Niekerk) had said, the people felt this deeply. They felt that there was practically a charge that President Steyn had acted dishonestly. Against this he protested most strongly. Continuing, Mr. Van Niekerk said he took it that Mr. Gurney had accepted the salary conditionally, and therefore Parliament had the fullest right to reduce the salary. This was a case in which he held they would be right in economising, especially when they remembered all the speeches favouring economy which they had had to listen to. £1,500 was enough. Was the right hon. member for Victoria West going to show that he was in earnest by voting for economy without regard to personal considerations? He opposed the withdrawal of the amendment.

said that the hon. member who spoke last, and other hon. members, seemed to be under the impression that the Auditor-General had gone out of his way to make an attack on a certain person, whom everybody in the House looked upon with the highest respect. He hoped that hon. members would not allow their feelings to run away with them, but would endeavour to consider the matter calmly, and to see what the Auditor-General really had done in this matter. Now, what the Auditor-General reported was, so far as he (Mr. Duncan) understood, a fact. It had not, so far as he knew, been contradicted, and it was not alleged that he had misstated a fact. What the Auditor-General reported was that a certain sum of money had been spent out of the funds of the Orange Free State on certain items, which he specified. It was not denied that, the money was spent, and it could not be denied that it was the duty of the Auditor-General to bring that fact to the notice of Parliament in his report. The fact that the money had been sanctioned by the Government of the Free State did not relieve the Auditor-General of his duty to bring the fact to the notice of Parliament. There was no insinuation whatever in his report that there was anything wrong in the spending of the money. He never said or indicated that the gentlemen in question, in spending the money, did a thing which they should not have done. He simply said: “Here is money being spent from public funds, under the authority of the Free State Government, and it has not been brought to the notice of Parliament.” It was his duty to report the matter to Parliament. He was a servant of Parliament and not a servant of the Government. In his (Mr. Duncan’s) opinion, the Auditor-General had made no attack upon the gentlemen mentioned. He had mentioned gentlemen on both sides of the House indiscriminately. For instance, the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) was mentioned in the same schedule. The Auditor-General, in making his report, was actuated by nothing else than a desire to do his duty to Parliament.; He had no thought, he was sure, of personal, political, or racial bias. He hoped that hon. members would take that view, and that the amendment would be withdrawn, as suggested by the Minister of Finance.

said that he had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to carry out a very unpleasant duty, and he wished to make his position quite clear. So far as he was concerned, on the correspondence placed before the House, he was quite satisfied that the Government appointed the Auditor-General at a salary of £2,000, and that, in the ordinary way, he was entitled to that amount. Subsequent to the appointment, they found that misstatements were made by the Auditor-General in his report, and that was the charge he made. The Auditor-General admitted that he made errors, and he (Mr. Stockenstrom) wanted to know whether it; was not the duty of the committee to act as a jury in the matter, and say whether it should confirm the appointment or not. Was the committee, in the circumstances which had been brought before it, to confirm the appointment? The Minister had asked him to withdraw his motion, and the hon. member for Maritzburg had suggested that the proper place to thrash the matter out was before the Committee on Public Accounts. He was prepared to withdraw his motion at this stage, and in the meantime he hoped that the House would have an interim report on the subject from the Public Accounts Committee. He wished to say again that he did not move the reduction on the ground of economy. His object in moving was that the committee should have an opportunity of deciding whether the Auditor-General should remain or not.

said he would like to point out that if his friend (Mr. Stockenstrom) was not satisfied—and he had been perfectly frank about the matter—with the conduct of the Auditor-General, his proper course was to move the House, and the other House, to present an address to the Governor-General-in-Council for the Auditor-General’s removal from office. That was provided for under section 132 of the Act of Union. It seemed to him that it was not right that they in that House should consider the question of reducing the salary of this official. The salary had, so far as he could see, been guaranteed by the Governor-General-in-Council. It was not right that because he had made a mistake, they should not carry out their obligations.

The motion for reduction was withdrawn, and the vote agreed to.

asked the Minister to give the committee some indication as to what had happened to the officers who were employed by the Agents-General of the various colonies prior to Union.

said he wished to draw attention to a matter which, he felt sure, Would cause a great deal of feeling, and that was the refusal of the Union Government, through the High Commissioner, to assist in the Festival of Empire and the Coronation Exhibition to be held in London. He mentioned that all the British colonies, with the exception of South Africa and Australia, who, however, were giving partial assistance, were enthusiastically assisting in the Festival of Empire. He pointed to the benefits derived from the South African Exhibition, which was; held in London some time ago, and expressed the opinion that on this occasion the Union was missing a splendid business opportunity. He asked the Minister to make a statement on the subject, which was causing a great deal of feeling.

said that the Festival of Empire was to have been held last year, but it was postponed. No South African Government was approached on that occasion to contribute. It was purely a private venture, as it was to-day, for certain laudable purposes. It was only on the present occasion that the Union Government was approached, and what had happened? The Union Government was approached by two rival bodies. The one was the Festival of Empire and the other was the Coronation Festival. The Festival of Empire was to hold an exhibition at the Crystal Palace, and the Coronation Committee was to hold another exhibition at the White City. The Union Government made inquiries, and it found that on the whole the Coronation Festival would be the better of the two to support. That was the opinion of the Union Government, but in view of the two applications, and in view of the fact that a very large sum of money was spent last year on the Union celebrations in South Africa, the Government thought it was not justified in making the public of South Africa contribute to either of the festivals. It thought that it could not do justice on this occasion, because it felt it could not give an adequate sum of money, and that it had not sufficient time to prepare the necessary exhibit.

replying to Mr. Maydon, said that owing to Union the staffs of the four agencies had now been brought together. The reorganisation had not been completed, but considerable progress had been made. The gentleman Who acted as secretary to the Transvaal Agent-General had been retired on pension; the gentleman Who was secretary to the Cape Agent-General was now holding the acting appointment of secretary to the High Commissioner; the services of the gentleman who held the position, of secretary to the Natal Agent-General had been retained, and he had been transferred to the stores and shipping department; the officer in the stares and Shipping department, whose position had been taken by the fate Natal secretary, had been retired; and the secretary to the Free State Agent-General had been appointed assistant secretary to the High Commissioner. All regarded the Natal and Cape Trades Commissioners, it was hoped that there would be work for them in London and South Africa. At present both officials were employed in London.

said the item for unforeseen expenditure was disproportionately high.

pointed out that some expense was involved in amalgamating four offices.

After verbal alterations the vote was agreed to.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he had any statement regarding the Sinking Fund?

said hon. members would recollect that in the course of his Budget statement be said that this question of the Sinking Fund would have to be considered some time or other. He had hoped that the discussion would have elicited more information as to the views of hon. members. It seemed to him quite obvious that hon. members believed that there was one thing they should do, and that was to be very Careful in reducing their Sinking Fund. (Hear, hear.) He was not prepared to press the suggestion which he made in his Budget speech to reduce this Sinking Fund. He had made provision in his Estimates for the total amount.

Stick to it.

said that during the next twelve months some definite steps would be taken with regard to this Sinking Fund.

moved: To reduce the amount by £15,000, from the item “Sinking Fund on the Permanent Debt, Cape of Good Hope, £191,200,” under sub-head “C—Redemption” on page 198.

Agreed to.

moved to substitute the revised report. (See pp. 1143-5, “Votes and Proceedings,”) The actual total was the same, but there were differences in the sub-votes.

The motion was agreed to.

desired to know whether the pension of £500 from the Transvaal and £490 from the Free State was being paid to the Hon. Mr. Reitz, in addition to ibis salary as President of the Senate?

said Mr. Reitz was still receiving the pension in addition to his salary as President of the Senate.

wished to draw attention to the case of the late Constable Burton, of the Transvaal Police, who was killed while in the execution of his duty. In this case there had, he said, been a Court of Inquiry, which had reported that the man met his death in the execution of his duty, and through no fault of his own. Colonel Burns-Begg, the then Commissioner of Police, had recommended that the widow should receive an annuity of two-fifths of the man’s salary. The matter had been referred to the Minister of Justice, who had refused to pay that amount, and the matter had then been referred to the new Commissioner, who also recommended that a liberal allowance should be made to the widow. In spite of the recommendations of the two Commissioners, the Minister of Justice took it upon his own hands to treat the widow upon absolutely the lowest scale he could under the Transvaal law. In order to get an expression of the feeling of the House upon that point, he would move a reduction of £47 in section (c).

said that he would like to ask the Minister on what basis pensions were granted to officials between the date of Union and December 31 last. Upon what principle was the retirement of officials made? They had a case in the Free State of a young man being put on pension, and a man being brought over from somewhere else to take his position. In the case of Mr. Jackson, they had given a pension to a young man. They had imported a man who happened to be the brother of the Provincial Secretary.

Imported?

said that he had been imported from Natal. Mr. Rabie had been sent down here as Committee Secretary, and there was no reason why either Mr. Jackson or Mr. Rabie should not have been appointed to that position. There was another man well under 40, who had been in the Public Works Department, and who received a pension of £274 a year. He understood that since then another man had been appointed.

questioned the accuracy of the last statement.

Does the Hon. Minister deny that Mr. Glenday is a young man, or that he is in receipt of a pension of £274 a year?

also alluded to the case of the widow of Police-Constable Burton. He submitted that even the gratuity of £120 recommended by the Commissioner of Police was not sufficient. It was true that the man had served only two years (and seven years in the IS.A.C.), but the Act made no difference whether a man had served one, two, or more years, so long as he was killed in the execution of his duty. He thought that these men should be treated with greater liberality; and when a man in a higher position in life had been killed in a railway accident, the Government had paid £3,000 compensation to his relatives.

appealed to the Minister to take the matter into his most earnest consideration.

said that he was not personally acquainted with the matter, so that he could not say whether an adequate gratuity had been offered or not, but he assumed that the Minister of Justice had dealt fairly with the case under the circumstances. A hard-and-fast rule should be laid down to deal with such cases. (Cheers.) If he accepted the hon. member’s amendment to reduce the vote, he would have to do an injustice to someone else. As to the Bloemfontein case, he was not personally acquainted with the facts, but no doubt there was some special reason for sending an officer from Natal to Bloemfontein.

said the case mentioned by the hon. member for Denver was a very hard one, and amounted almost to a scandal. When there was a hard-and-fast law, unfortunately the Treasurer of the late Transvaal Government did not adhere to it.

said the law allowed a certain latitude, and he believed that the Minister could give the gratuity if he wished to do so. The gratuity of £51 to the widow was a beggarly one.

said he had drawn attention to the case because the Minister of Justice had disregarded the recommendations of two Commissioners of Police. If a man was killed in the execution of his duty, the exact manner in which he was killed should not affect the lease.

said it appeared to him that when the Orange River Colony Government saw Union was approaching, they grew more liberal, the number of pensions having been doubled.

said the explanation was exceedingly simple, the departments being overstaffed, and in order not to have a perpetual outcry in the papers about treating the English unfairly, Government said they would give the retrenched officials what was promised them.

said the officials concerned were all those of the old Republic.

said that what the late Orange River Colony Government did was simply to carry out the law, and remedy a crying injustice. Both sets of officials were treated exactly alike.

said when the British took over the Free State, they gave some of the old officials an allowance, but not so large as they would have been entitled to under the old Free State law. The men were entitled to the pensions which were not so high as those in the Cape.

said that he was as much in favour of economy as anyone, but in this case of the widow of the policeman who was killed, he did not think the Minister had given a satisfactory explanation. They were doing a great injustice to this unfortunate woman. As the matter stood now it was an absolute scandal. Here was a man killed in the execution of his duty, and yet the widow was offered a paltry sum of £50.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved that this vote stand over.

Agreed to.

moved to reduce item E, miscellaneous expenses, £15,000, to £5,000.

Agreed to.

asked the Minister if he was prepared to make some declaration of policy in regard to the payment of members of Parliament who sat on Commissions?

drew attention to a petition which he had presented from the Right Rev. Bishop Rooney. This arose in regard to the item of “allowances, of chaplains (Cape of Good Hope).” He said that he had brought the case before the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. He explained the circumstances under which the petitioner had placed his claim before the House for an increased: grant for the allowances to chaplains. He thought the House was morally bound to support Dr. Rooney in his application for an increased emolument. He appealed to the Minister of Finance to give him an assurance: that the petition would be given the favourable consideration of Government during the recess.

said he would like to know how long the allowances to chaplains in the Cape and churches in the Free State had to run? He hoped to see these items expunged from the Estimates in future.

said that, the allowances to chaplains in the Cape of Good Hope had been in operation prior to 1875. They had expired as the gentlemen in receipt of the emoluments died. There were very few left now. In regard to Commissions, there seemed to be some doubt in the minds of the legal gentlemen as to whether a member of Parliament serving upon a Commission should be paid for his services— whether that constituted an office of profit under the Crown. His own view was that the Government should not remunerate members of Parliament when they sat on Commissions. The grants to churches in the Orange Free State Were of some standing, and the Government had decided now to discontinue those grants gradually. They would be extinguished over a period of years.

said Bishop Rooney only transferred on the definite assurance that he would not thereby prejudice his claim. A subsequent Attorney-General, however, held that the exchange effected by Bishop Rooney constituted a vacation of office, and that therefore Bishop Rooney had no claim. It was an unworthy act on the part of the Government to rely on a pure technicality. The sum involved was only £100.

said the case was specially referred to Mr. Burton when that gentleman was Attorney-General of the late Cape Government. Mr. Burton gave a very definite opinion that the payment, apart altogether from the equity of the case, would—in view of the actual wording of the Act—be illegal. The Auditor-General stated that on the strength of that opinion he would not pass a voucher for the payment if it were mad.

explained that he did not wish to suggest that the act was an unworthy one in any personal sense. It was competent for Government to come to Parliament and ask its authority to make a special grant to Bishop Rooney.

said that by the Convention it was provided that members of Parliament in future who sat upon Commissions should be paid nothing but out-of-pocket expenses.

said he was unable to give an undertaking to make this allowance, whatever his personal feeling might be. He must ask hon. members to remember that this matter was dealt with by the Cape Government, and he did not desire to override their decision. (Hear, hear.)

pointed out that claims which were not so strong as Bishop Rooney’s had been granted. He had had the assurance by the Attorney-General of the time that his case would not be prejudiced.

The vote was agreed to.

drew attention to the case of the commonage of Carnarvon, which was very complicated, and a settlement would be to the advantage of the whole country. A plan had been drawn up and em bodied in a draft Act. This was subsequently referred to the Provincial Council, and the Administrator informed them that the Act would be passed through. Now it had been discovered that this could not be done in the Provincial Council, and so these people could not get a settlement of their land. He (Mr. Merriman) would be glad to get the assurance from the Minister that he would inquire into the matter and take the earliest opportunity of righting what, by misadventure, was a great wrong to these people.

said he understood that the investigation had been brought up to the point where a settlement could be made. He would look into the matter, and would take the first opportunity of putting it right.

Thank you.

asked what progress was being made with the Rooiberg Dam and grounds in Kenhardt, which were lying useless at present. A slight further expenditure would enable profitable use to be made of these assets.

That comes under the vote of Irrigation.

No, it is land. Is the land going to be given to the Municipality?

asked whether the Minister of the Interior was taking any action at all in regard to the question of workmen’s cottages, on which they had had a debate on Tuesday week, on the motion of Dr. MACAULAY. The debate had been adjourned, but, like other of these Tuesday afternoon debates, he was afraid it had been adjourned until the Greek Kalends.

said that there could not be a debate on the matter, as there was a motion on the order paper dealing with it. The hon. member, however, could ask a question about it.

accordingly asked Mr. Fischer what the Government intended doing?

replied that in regard to general settlement it seemed to be going on better than at first. As to the question of fencing, the Government had to be very careful in regard to support, and not give everything that was asked for. He could assure Mr. Jagger that he was quite alive to what was wanted in these settlements. In regard to Mr. Wessels’s question, correspondence was now going on, but as certain negotiations were being carried on, he would give the information at another time. As to what Mr. Kuhn had said about the Rooiberg Dam, it would cost too much to repair entirely, and the expense would not be justified; but if it were partially repaired, sufficient water would collect. At present they were seeing what arrangements could he made with the Municipality. Dealing with the proposal for miners’ cottages, he said that the project had his sympathy, and he hoped that in some way or other these men would be properly housed. He hoped that some of the companies who had such large tracts of land would come to their assistance sooner than the Government. (Laughter.) He was more concerned with those who wanted to come on the land to get their living out of it than those who had other occupations already. He could not promise that he would give that matter his personal attention, as it did not Strictly fall under his department, and he had too much hay on his fork already.

asked a question about some experimental land settlement scheme which the Government had undertaken, but the details were not heard in the Press Gallery.

asked the Minister whether the Government would be prepared, in the recess, to appoint a Commission to inquire into the question of the settlement of industrial workers on the land and into the success of schemes of this character in other parts of the world?

said he thought that was quite unnecessary. The Government were fully alive to the circumstances and wants of the country as regarded land settlement.

said that it had been thought necessary in other countries to appoint Commissions to inquire into this question.

was understood to say that he had rather misunderstood the question. The question of the settlement of industrial workers on the land did not belong to his department.

asked if the Government intended to carry out the recommendations of the dry irrigation expert, and have exhibition homesteads in different parts of the country?

replied that everything would be done to encourage dry farming, not by means of homesteads, but by going on to farmers’ lands and showing them how to do it.

referred to the Klip River Valley irrigation scheme. He said that a Commission had made certain recommendations, but so far as he was aware, no steps had been taken by the Government.

urged that measures should be taken in reference to boring in the Kenhardt district.

asked what it was proposed to do in regard to the representations of the Divisional Councils’ Congress at Kimberley with reference to the cost of hiring boring machines?

pointed out that in order to eradicate scab and to kill locusts water was indispensable. He complained of the stringent, boring regulations, and criticised the fact that three districts in the northern part of the Cape Province were receiving the benefit of Government drills, though they were by no means the driest districts, whereas the North-west was without drills.

considered the Director of Irrigation’s salary too high.

also complained about the way in which Government carried out the work of drilling. The Transvaal Government, he said, did the work well, making private competition impossible, but the tariff had been suddenly raised from £2 to £4, which was a severe handicap to farmers. The large salaries paid were unfair to the farmer, who had to hear the brunt of the financial burden. Applicants who had already sent in their applications only paid £2, and he supposed it would take a couple of years until they had all been served, which was unfair to those who were applying now.

feared that if the Government intended assisting people by drilling, they would not attain their object, because £4 a day was excessive, and would enable only the favoured few to avail themselves of the facilities offered. He was in favour of the system of subsidies as it existed in the Cape—(hear, hear)—which led to the construction of a number of wells. In the North-western districts water was the one thing needed.

objected to the new drilling regulations, instancing a number of cases in which they worked unfairly. Cash payment was undesirable, because it compelled farmers to bond their properties, which always involved trouble and expense.

said that, though it never rained in his constituency, the Minister had hardened his heart and refused to send a drill.

objected to the deposit of £50 galled for by the Government when an application for a drill was received, because he considered it interfered with the development of agriculture.

said he was disappointed at the smallness of the vote. It was not clear how much would really be spent on irrgation. He was all in favour of a number of minor irrigation schemes.

said there were some districts where small irriigation schemes had every chance of success, though they were unsuitable for drilling operations. In the nature of things, the construction of small dams was preferable to drilling, because the latter deprived the soil of its moisture, whereas dams held back the water that would otherwise flow into the ocean. The regulations frightened the farmers.

trusted that the Klip River question would be conclusively dealt with this time. He admitted the Government were faced with a difficult problem, because expropriation would involve enormous expenditure. At the same time, the matter should be settled once for all. Many farmers had gone insolvent in the region affected, and many others were leading a hand-to-mouth existence. The present state of affairs might lead to an injunction being issued against the Waterworks one of these days, in which case the mines would suffer. As soon as the Minister returned to the Transvaal he would find many deputations waiting to see him. It was disgraceful that one of the finest parts of the country was being ruined owing to the tapping of the subterranean sources. The hon. member for Wodehouse had drawn attention to one aspect of the question, and he was perfectly right, at least, as far as certain geological formations were concerned.

it was quite true what hon. members said about the great importance of irrigation, and the Government was keeping in view what could be done, and it would not be content merely with giving sympathy. As to the Director of Irrigation, he had been appointed under contract; but, apart from that, there was no official who better deserved his salary than he, for he was most efficient. As to the price of water-bores, the £4 per day now charged came out cheaper, owing to the better quality of the bores, than the £2 which had previously been charged. It was impossible for the Government to give subsidies; and if the Government did give them they could not give them in one Province and not in another, If they had to give them over the whole of the Union, it would cost too much. The next thing they would be asked would be to give subsidies for the construction of dams. The subsidies had, first of all, been given as an encouragement, and that was no longer necessary. Some assistance, he continued, would be by means of the Land Bank, which would be extended to apply to the Cape Province. (Cheers.) Hon. members, however, talked too much and did very little. It was not the intention of the Government to give people subsidies to go prospecting, and boring for water, which might, and did, lead to great losses being incurred; but rather to bore for water on Crown lands, and then, if the results were successful, to divide the lands for purposes of closer settlement. As to irrigation schemes, it was a very big subject, and all he would say at that stage was that the Government would investigate, and not go in for large schemes; but rather for small co-operative ones. The engineers’ salaries had to be paid in connection with that work. The hon. member for Beaufort West had complained unjustly, because the Government made most of the drills they had. Government would deal with the Klip River question as soon as possible. Large and conflicting interests were involved, however, and more time was required.

Having been verbally amended, the vote was agreed to.

asked whether the Minister had decided to leave the Deeds Offices in the various Provinces.

said there was no idea of removing them.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 34, Surveyors-General, £69,135,

asked whether an alteration could not be made in regard to the examination of surveyors, as under the present conditions very few Candidates passed, and there appeared to be a desire to exclude candidates from the I profession. That was not right, however, if candidates were qualified. He believed two of the examiners had never passed an examination themselves. Government should step in while there was yet time.

said that the examinations would in future be under the direct auspices of the University, and: everything would be done to see that candidates were treated fairly.

The vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again tomorrow.