from the General Assembly of the Reformed Congregations of the Orange Free State, against the legislation of marriage between a widow and her deceased husband’s brother.

from the Divisional Council, and inhabitants of Bedford, against the creation of a Fiscal Division of the Magisterial area of Adelaide.

from residents of Potchefstroom, praying for equal facilities for the Dutch and English languages on the railways.

from M. A. Bale, widow of Sir Henry Bale, K.C.M.G. Chief Justice of Natal.

from H. D. Lategan, for commuted pension.

moved: That the papers laid on the table of the House yesterday by the Minister of Justice relating to the grant of a gratuity to the widow of the late Constable Burton, Transvaal Police, be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Late Inter-Colonial Council.

Officers and employees in Railway Department on the Fixed Establishment whom it is proposed to retire, owing to amalgamation of railways.

I wish with leave of the House to make a statement. It appears to me to he desirable that I should make clear my position, and that of my friends, on the subject of the separate schools in the Free State. I fully appreciate the chivalrous feeling which makes hon. gentlemen opposite scrupulous to safeguard the interests of teachers and others, whom they have in any measure been responsible for leading into their present position: but, as far as this Parliament is concerned, it is impossible for me, or anyone else representing the Free State, to depart from the ground which we have always occupied, namely, that the language question must be treated entirely apart from any question affecting any one of the Provinces exclusively. (Hear, hear.) I am anxious to make it clear that my attitude on this point is not due to any ill-wish or vindictiveness on the part of myself or my colleagues. We have recognised throughout that, in the event of our arriving at a solution of the language question, the separate schools in the Free State should immediately obtain the friendly consideration of the Government, and that both the schools and the staffs should be given an opportunity of coming under the State—-(hear, hear)—and should, if they are willing to do so, be taken over and provided for. I therefore desire to say that if, and when a satisfactory solution of the general Language question has been reached, the Union Government should, in my opinion, arrange, if possible, in conjunction with the Provincial authorities, for the treatment of the schools and teachers on just, and even generous terms to all concerned, and in saying this I am happy to be able to add that I have the assent of all my colleagues in the Ministry. (Hear, hear.)

moved: That on the consideration of the Public Debt Commissioners Bill in Committee of the Whole House, Standing Order No. 403, having reference to the amendments made in Private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that clauses 5 and 6 stand down.

Agreed to.

On clause 7, Assistant Controller and Auditor-General,

said that he wanted to raise a question there—a very important one—the position of the Assistant Controller and Auditor-General. In the Bill as it had originally been introduced, the section relating to the audit of the railway accounts had been left, as prescribed by the South Africa Act, to the Controller and Auditor-General. It was thought that it was a link, or one of the links, between the Government and that semi-independent body, the Railway Board. Well, it had been indicated to them in the Committee of Public Accounts—that had taken the evidence of members of the Railway Board — and as a result of that evidence they thought that it was better that the separate investigation of these accounts should be in the hands of one officer, and that the Auditor-General, who had to supervise the accounts of the whole Union, would not have the requisite time to apply himself, so much as he ought, to the accounts of such a gigantic undertaking as their railways. Then it had been proposed;, as would be seen from page 23 of the Public Accounts, that the Assistant Controller and Auditor-General should be specially charged with the supervision of the railway account; and that he should be allowed to certify these accounts, or send them to the Auditor-General, and that they should be presented to that House for the certificate of the Auditor-General, who should thus have supervision and control over the action of the Assistant Auditor-General. That was as far as the committee, or, at any rate, the minority of the committee, felt bound to go, and by a narrow majority the committee had decided that the Assistant Controller and Auditor-General should have specific powers, and that the Auditor-General, to whom the House looked as the principal controlling officer, should be a mere conduit pipe. “By doing this,” added Mr. Merriman, “you are setting up double control, and a double audit, which is most inefficient. You have two people riding on one horse, and you say that both should ride in front. (Laughter.) I think it is setting up very dangerous, divided authority, which is sure to set up friction.” He moved, as an amendment, that in sub-section 2, after the words “Assistant Auditor-General,” the following be added: “be presented with the Auditor-General’s certificate, and any remarks he may present thereon.”

said that the amendment raised a very important principle, as Mr. Merriman had said, and it was one which he hoped the committee would take into serious consideration before they came to a conclusion. It was perhaps as well that he should explain as shortly as he could what the principal points of that matter were. He thought it was the only outstanding point on which all the members of the committee had not seen eye to eye; but unfortunately it was one of the most important principles of that Bill. The Bill which he had originally presented to the House on the second reading contained a provision that all the accounts of the Union, including the accounts of the railways and harbours, should be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, and he had put forward these proposals partly because he felt that he was bound by the terms of the South Africa Act, which seemed to him to indicate that it was the intention of the Convention that the whole of the accounts should be audited by one Auditor-General. The Select Committee of Public Accounts had discussed that question very fully, and those of them who came from the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and who had experience of the O.S.A.R. system, knew that if there was one system of accounts which ought to be closely scrutinised and closely audited it was the system of accounts which appertained to the railways.

said that he was one of the members of committee who signed the minority report, and he would ask hon. members to read Appendices C and D of the first and second reports, in which were set forth, by the Acting Secretary for Finance and the Controller and Auditor-General, the difficulties in the way of accepting the recommendations of the majority. His reason for signing the minority report was—he wished to be quite frank about the matter—because he believed they were placing the Assistant Auditor-General In a position with regard to the railways of paramount responsibility, and that they were placing the Auditor-General in a position of inferiority. (Opposition cheers.) Of course, that was not a very great difficulty, because he believed that whichever method they adopted they would find that the accounts of the railways and harbours would be faithfully audited and reported upon to Parliament.

said that in his opinion it was a mistake to have an audit for the Railway Department quite separate and distinct from the ordinary departments of the Union.

said the Bill as it stood placed the two officers in an invidious position. It would be wise, seeing that they had separated the two sets of accounts, and had two sets of estimates, to have two Auditors-General.

said that the committee had considered the point of having two Auditors-General, but it had been pointed out that this was contrary to the Act of Union, which provided that there should be one Auditor-General for the Union. The difficulty was that they gave the Auditor-General no power to satisfy himself as to the work of the Assistant Auditor-General. He was bound to take the report of that officer. He had practically no control so far as the railway accounts were concerned. It was significant that two important officers—the Secretary for Finance and also the Auditor-General himself— were both opposed to the system as laid down in the Bill. They held that it was unworkable, and that one officer must be responsible if the audit was to be satisfactory. There would be difficulty in working under this system, and it depended very much on the fact of the two gentlemen in working together whether they would get things along at all. By this Bill they were proposing to give the Assistant Auditor-General power which made him independent of the Auditor-General, who was the supreme head.

said that the Bill provided for a separate audit of the railway accounts, and that the officer who did that audit should have power to do it in his own way, and should be held responsible. By that means they secured that Parliament should get a report from the man who actually conducted the audit. Now it was proposed in some shadowy way to give the Auditor-General power to interfere. In the Bill they gave the Auditor-General power to examine the work of the Assistant Auditor-General, and if he was not satisfied in all respects that the audit had been properly carried out, he had power to make independent inquiries; and he would report to the House. What the committee wanted to secure was that the officer who conducted the audit should report directly to Parliament without his report being edited. They wanted the report of the man who actually did the work. They were allowing the man to work on his own lines, and at the same time they were securing the authority of the Auditor-General by giving him power to make his own investigations and to report to the House if he was not satisfied.

said the Bill left the supreme authority with the Auditor-General. The committee haying arrived at the unanimous conclusion to specially depute this officer to do the work, he maintained it was then for Parliament to provide in a Bill that the officer should have the responsibility.

said he thought that if they were going to have a responsible Auditor-General, they must surely make him responsible for all the accounts of the Union. They were here setting up a dual authority without settling the respective responsibilities of the two officers. They were proposing to dispossess the Auditor-General of the right to say what men should be employed in this audit of the railway accounts, and what system should be adopted. If it was thought that the Auditor-General could not cope with these accounts, then the logical thing to do was to separate the railway accounts from the ordinary accounts, and to have two Auditors-General. As the audit of a great country like England was carried on by one official, the same should be possible here. One chief officer would result in a better working system.

said that the resolution adopted by the Public Accounts Committee really meant that the railway accounts were to be audited wholly apart from the Controller and Auditor-General. That was a complete departure from the principle laid down in the South Africa Act, which said that there “shall be a Controller and Auditor-General, who shall report on the moneys of the Union” to that House. It was a very serious step for that House to take to order an audit in direct opposition to the view of the two most important officials connected with public affairs. The committee’s suggestion was warmly opposed by the Auditor-General of the permanent bead of the Treasury. Mr. Leisk, Acting Secretary of Finance, had pointed out that, according to the proposals of the Select Committee, the Auditor-General would be “denied the right of that personal access to the accounts and officials concerned, without which audit or criticism must be largely ineffectual. Nor is this all—for the Controller and Auditor-General’s powers of calling upon his Assistant for information can only be exercised after the latter’s reports are received; he cannot conduct any continuous inquiry throughout the year.” Under these circumstances, proceeded the hon. member, the Auditor-General’s certificate would be of no value at all. The Bill had been built up around individuals, and the personal element had very largely entered into the consideration of the matter.

said that what the House had to consider was not so much the exact terms of the Select Committee’s resolution as the terms of the Bill. The resolution was moved to bring the discussion to a head, but it was not intended that there should be an independent and separate audit of the railway accounts. Section 51 of the Bill provided that the Assistant Controller should certify that he had examined the railway accounts, and should transmit them with his report thereon to the Controller and Auditor-General. He (Mr. Duncan) thought it was a pity that hon. members should speak as though these powers were a mere pretext. If the Auditor-General did his duty by these reports, his own report should be a great deal more than a sham. He had power, if he had reason to think that the accounts were not being prepared on the best system, to have full inquiries made, and to embody his conclusions in a report to that House. It was going much further than the facts warranted to say that he had no power over these accounts. It was perfectly true that in England there was only one Auditor-General, but let them consider what the position was under the Act of Union. He did not bold that they had been legislating merely for individuals, but the Act of Union had laid it down that there were to be two exchequers, which had different objects. There had been cases in which the Treasury had taken one view and the Railway Board another. They had been advised that the methods in which the railway accounts should be kept should differ fundamentally from those in which the general accounts were kept. The former should be kept more in accordance with the way in which commercial accounts were kept, and that was a totally different system from the ordinary exchequer system. It was felt by the committee that there should be la separate audit of the railway and harbour accounts. The committee had to choose between two disadvantages, and he was not in the least blind to the fact that certain disadvantages were involved in the dual system. They would have a division of authority which was certainly repellent to the official mind. He believed, however, that the system would work if they gave it a fair trial Against the disadvantages, they would have to put the fact that, un less they were going to give the officer who was responsible for the audit of the railway accounts the right to prescribe what the methods of that audit should be, there was no such thing as an independent audit at all.

said he was sorry to have to differ from his hon. friend (Mr. Duncan). He regarded him as the exponent of certain doctrines which to him (Mr. Merriman) were repellent, that was that they should have two exchequers set up in this country, that if the railways did not happen to pay—land railways had not paid all over South Africa in the past—and if anything were to happen to the great industry which supported the Witwatersrand, if their friends who were labouring in that direction were to succeed in producing a general strike so that the railways did not pay, then they would be face to face with an enormous crisis, and who would they have to look to for the interest on those railways? The general taxpayer of the country. He was totally opposed to the idea of setting up a separate exchequer and a separate financial control. Anything he could do to minimise the effect of what they did under the Act of Union would be cheerfully done. They tried to harmonise that by putting it under the control of the Auditor-General. They might not always have their friend (Mr. Sauer), who was slumbering so peacefully—(laughter)—with his “exquisite tact” as Minister, and they might have a conflict set up between the Railway Board and this House which would have to be fought to a finish. (Hear, hear.) He deprecated the setting up of an independent auditor. It was not merely an independent audit; it was an independent auditor. He wanted to make it certain that this Railway Commission would be under this House, obedient to this House, and not to have a separate auditor, but an auditor who was the servant of that House. The whole result of this proposal would be to widen the breach between Parliament and the Railway Commission, which would be very unfortunate indeed. They had been referred to the position in England. The one thing that the Public Accounts Committee in England had always got to struggle against was the attempt of those large spending departments, the Army and Navy, to set up an imperium in imperio. Half the time of the committee was taken up with the vagaries of these spending departments. Half the time of the Public Accounts Committee in this country, he was sure, when they got into committee, would be taken up in chocking and looking after the needs of the Railway Commission. He thought it was only fair to add that the Railway Commissioners themselves did not ask for this proposal.

said that the right hon. gentleman was delightfully inconsistent. He took his hon, friend (Mr. Duncan) to task because he wanted to set up two exchequers. Were there not two exchequer accounts set up under the Act? There were two separate accounts set up under the Act. His right hon. friend regarded all these clauses in the Act of Union as an “experiment,” and ever since the right hon. gentleman had been in the House all his great energy and ability had been directed towards the breaking down of these clauses which in the Act of Union gave those in the hinterland the protection that they stipulated for when they went into Union. He was glad to see that to-day the right hon. gentleman had for the purposes of his argument praised the Board. The other day he absolutely condemned it. Then he was inconsistent in another way, hopelessly inconsistent. They had his own draft in the Select Committee of two clauses, and those clauses were actually in the Bill.

No.

Excuse me. Will the right hon. gentleman allow me to go on? What has changed him in regard to those clauses?

Nothing.

I suppose the written information of the Treasurer land the Auditor-General. I have got a great respect for the Auditor-General, but I have got my own independent opinions, and there are members of this House who absolutely look ait all audit questions through Mr. Gurney’s spectacles. I prefer in these matters to exercise my own individual opinions. I will admit that there is the opinion of the head of the Treasury. I would point out that while I was on the Select Committee I could quote many questions on which the right hon. gentleman disagreed with the head of the Treasury.

May I make a correction? Where I differ is that there should be further provision made; and make the Assistant Auditor-General independent of the Auditor-General.

I still maintain that he practically agreed to the Bill as drafted.

No. I don’t.

said that he thought that the committee might accept that, whichever way they adopted, they would get an equally good audit, whether placed in the hands of the Auditor-General himself or the Assistant Auditor-General. He went on to say that he could not help but reflect on the misgiving created in many minds that the railway accounts seemed to be drifting more and more outside the range of the House; and if anything was further calculated to set them drifting still further, it was those proposals under the Bill. Sir George Farrar seemed to him to go far to prove the opposite of the conclusion he had come to, and it was the same in regard to Mr. Duncan. Nothing would be more unfortunate than that the railway should be considered wholly as a commercial concern, because if the railway, like a commercial concern which gave better terms to its large customers, once adopted the policy of differentiation, he did not know where it would end; and only the other day Mr. Duncan himself had complained of differentiation with regard to the rates on coal. If the best customer of the railways were to get the lowest terms, they would be setting up a state of things never before experienced in South Africa, whether by shipping or by meat rings. Setting up two kings in the country would lead sooner or later to warfare between them: and in the matter of auditing there should be one man at the head, to whom they should look for the responsibility. He hoped that Mr. Merriman’s amendment would be accepted by the committee.

said that he only wanted to direct attention to a slight error into which Mr. Merriman had fallen. One of the members of the Railway Boards who had given evidence before the committee, was in favour of a separate auditor being appointed for the railway accounts. Mr. Hull read from pp. 51, 52, and 55 of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts—evidence given by Colonel Greene—to bear out what he said.

said that just as in large centres they had men at the Blair who specialised in certain directions, so in regard to accounts there were men who specialised. Was the Department of the Auditor-General capable of dealing with the railway accounts, and had they trained men who could deal with them? He would suggest that, under all the circumstances, it would be just as well to accept the recommendation of the majority of the committee. He was going to support Mr. Merriman, but Mr. Duncan had made it so clear that he would support the recommendation of the committee.

said that he thought that it was just as competent for the Auditor-General to get a member of his staff to audit the railway accounts as for the Assistant Auditor-General to do so. Mr. Duncan had omitted to say that the system in England was that there was one Auditor-General, who was responsible to Parliament alone. He hoped the House would not adopt the system proposed in the Bill. It was contrary to the principle laid down in the South Africa Act. As a business man, he strongly deprecated having two independent authorities as proposed.

said that he wished to point out to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mir. Brown) that Mr. Isaacs, the present auditor for railways and harbours, did not claim to be a great expert on railway accounts.

I did not mention Mr. Isaacs. I only said that we should have a railway expert on railway accounts.

said Mr. Isaacs only had six years’ experience of railway accounts, and this was his view of Parliamentary control: “I think it is a good thing to have Parliamentary control; but I do not think you should have it if it means sacrificing your system of accounts and giving an enormous amount of extra work to the railways, and thereby increasing the expenditure.”

said he could not see how the right hon. gentleman’s amendment affected the matter. He quite agreed, however, that there should be one superior head, and that the audit should be under one control.

said he would like to point out that according to the Bill the Assistant-Controller and Auditor-General was to be the subordinate of the Auditor-General, but he was to be a special independent officer, who was to have his own staff, and that he very strongly objected to. They were setting up an independent audit for the railways, and that was where the difficulty came in.

said that several times reference had been made to the resolutions of the Select Committee having been unanimously adopted. Although he did not divide the committee, he was absolutely opposed to them from the beginning

put the amendments of the Select Committee, and declared them agreed to.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was accordingly negatived.

Clause 13,

It was agreed to omit the clause.

On new clause 14,

said he saw no reason why they should go back upon what the Select Committee had agreed to. The powers conferred upon the Auditor-General under clause 14 were given under the Cape Act. The Auditor-General should have the power to send for any officer in the Public Service for the purpose of making inquiries as to any item in the accounts.

said his objection was to the sub-section which gave ro the Auditor-General power to call any person in South Africa before him for the purpose of being examined. It was a most extraordinary power to confer on anybody. If they passed this, then to be consistent they should give power to the Auditor-General to administer the oath to a person whom he called before him, and to impose a fine as a penalty for contempt for non-appearance when summoned.

said this matter was fully discussed in committee, and after due deliberation eight voted for the new clause 14 and three against. He thought it was only reasonable that the Auditor-General should have power to call anybody who could give him information in regard to the use of Public money.

said the Attorney-General desired the power, which he had found most useful in the past. One advantage would be that persons who were suspected of wrong-doing would have an opportunity of appearing before the Auditor-General and of giving an explanation which might avoid a criminal prosecution.

said he was in accord with the Minister on this clause.

said one would imagine from the picture drawn by the Minister that in the Cape there was a procession of people going up to the Treasury to be examined. But no assured the Minister that there was no system of persecution. Thousands of people in Cape Town never knew that there was such a clause in existence, but there were one or two people who were very pleased indeed that there was this clause. People had not been persecuted by this clause; there was no need to be afraid of it, and it was neither novel nor extraordinary. (Hear, hear.)

thought the Auditor-General should have the power to examine anyone in the Public Service.

said the Auditor had the power under the old Cape Act. Why should they not give their own officer power to look after the taxpayers’ money? (Hear, hear.) Would it not be foolish to restrict his powers? The fears of the Minister were groundless, and no trouble had arisen in the Cape. Why should the officer’s power be restricted or his hands tied? Only people who handled public money could be examined.

But you don’t give him the power.

You give him the power to carry out the work.

said the same powers existed in Canada.

moved the omission from clause 14 of sub-section (c), which gave the Auditor-General power to “examine all persons whatsoever respecting receipt or expenditure of public moneys, or respecting public stores or other Government property, or respecting any other matter or thing necessary for the due performance and exercise of the duties and powers vested by law in the Controller and Auditor-General.

said a great deal of valuable evidence was taken by Select Committees, although the witnesses were not put under oath.

The amendment of Mr. Hull to clause 14 was declared carried.

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

intimated that he was not at present ready to go on with clause 5.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Saturday.

was about to put the question,

rose, but he apparently did not come under the Speaker’s notice, and the motion for the second reading was put and declared carried.

proceeded to read the Bill a second time.

said that, owing to the noise that was going on, members of the House had no idea what was taking place.

I must point out to the hon. member that the Bill is read a second time.

said that he was on his feet when the question was put.

said he very much regretted that he did not notice anybody rise. The Bill had been debated for a considerable number of days, and he thought the debate had concluded. The Bill had now been read a second time.

said that it was a most unfortunate thing that the Government should try to rush business through like that without discussion. He must strongly protest against it.

said that he had looked round when the question was put, and he saw nobody rise.

I understood that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. De Beer) desired to sneak. Will you allow him to make an explanation, Mr. Speaker?

I am afraid I cannot. Committee stage?

Monday.

seconded the motion that the Bill go to committee on Monday.

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

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

I may point out to hon. members that there seems to be some misunderstanding on this matter; but hon. members will have full opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair.

That doesn’t make it any better.

moved: In line 4 to omit “this Act or by”

Agreed to.

On clause 2,

moved: In sub-section (1), line 17, after “amounts” to insert “and upon such terms and conditions”; to omit sub-section (2) and: substitute the following: “(2) When stock has been disposed of ox a tender has been accepted, as in the last preceding sub-section prescribed, the purchaser shall, on production to the Department of Finance (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Treasury ’) of proof of payment of the full amount due by him, receive credit in books to be kept for that purpose by the Treasury for the amount of stock which he may have purchased; and the books aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of the title of any person in respect of stock of which he is entered as owner. The purchaser shall further receive from the Treasury a certificate signed by the Minister of Finance or by an officer nominated by him to that duty and countersigned by such other officer as the Minister aforesaid may appoint, specifying the amount of stock for which credit is so given.” To add at the end of sub-section (3) the words “or such other place as may be prescribed ”; and to omit sub-sections (4) and (5).

Agreed to.

moved: That the following he a new clause: “(3) The stock shall be transferable in the books of the Treasury, and every person to whom any such credit as aforesaid has been given in the said books in the first instance, or to whom any transfer has thereafter been made in the said books, shall be entitled to require and demand from the Treasury a certificate stating the amount of the stock standing to his credit in the said books.”

suggested that the clause should stand over until the third! reading, when the clause might be redrafted. The idea, he said, was that local stock should be issued here, and that people should then be enabled to transfer to a register in England. Now, it seemed that this stock, if registered in England, would be liable to a stamp duty. The clause they wanted to put in in committee was one which would enable a person to transfer his local stock issued here into consolidated stock in England on the ordinary stock register. The clause, as it stood, would, he thought, be misleading. It was no use putting in a clause to say that they might open a stock register when they did not intend to do it.

said that there were two questions. Under the clause as to the register for local stock, the idea he had was that if local stock were issued in the Union he wanted separate machinery by which local stock should be capable of being transferred in the United Kingdom.

Without stamp duty?

Yes. My hon. friend thinks that such stock would be liable to stamp duty. That is a question I am inquiring into. The other point is the convertibility of local stock into consolidated stock, and vice versa. I understood from the discussion we had in committee that we came to the conclusion not to make any provision in the law in regard to that. Now my hon. friend has raised the question again. That clause is also being inquired into. If the committee wants the information the better plan would be to report the Bill so as to enable me to get further information by Monday.

Let the clause stand over until the third reading.

suggested that they could omit the clauses in question, and report the Bill with amendments, and, if necessary, fresh clauses could be drafted and put in on the third reading.

New clause 3 was agreed to.

moved: That the following be a new clause: “4. Local stock shall be convertible into local stock certificates to bearer, and as often as occasion shall require, such certificates shall be reinscribed as local stock. Local stock certificates to bearer shall pass, and the title there to be transferred by delivery of the certificates”.

Agreed to.

moved: That the following be a new clause: “5. Neither the Treasury, nor any agent appointed in its place as hereinafter prescribed, shall enter in a register of local stock, or be otherwise affected by any notice of any alleged right, interest, trust, power or claim of or by any person in respect of any stock, other than the person entered in the register aforesaid as owner of such stock or lawfully entitled to be so entered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

Agreed to.

On clause 3,

moved: To omit “the last preceding section” in line 44, and substitute “sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Act.”

Agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved: In line 10, after “Agents” to insert “and the management of transfers of such stock”; in lines 11 and 12 to omit paragraph (c); and in line 17 to omit “or loans.

Agreed to.

On clause 7,

moved: To omit paragraph (a); in line 27 after “loan” to omit “as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) ”; and in line 31 to omit “other.”

Agreed to.

moved: That the following be a new clause: “9. The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, prescribing: (a) the procedure which shall be observed and the forms which shall be used in carrying out the provisions of this Act; (b) such fees and charges as to him may appear reasonable for the performance of any services provided for in this Act.”

Agreed to.

moved: To omit the heading “Conversion of existing Loans into Consolidated Stock.”

Agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 13 were negatived.

On clause 14,

moved: In line 10 to omit the short title of the Act and substitute “General Loans Act, 1911.”

Agreed to.

The schedule was negatived.

On the title,

moved: To alter the title by the omission of “and to provide for the creation of Consolidated Stock.”

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and specially an alteration in the title, consideration of which was set down for Monday.

said he would like some explanation with regard to the salary of the Secretary for Native Affairs. That officer, he said received £1,500 a year, whereas he only received £800 in the Cape service. Other officers in the service of the department, who bore the burden of the day, received small salaries. For instance, the Chief Magistrate in the Transkei received £1,050, and the Chief Native Commissioner £1,200.

said he hoped the (Minister would make a statement with regard to the question of traffic between Butterworth and Umtata.

said that the Minister had told the House that he was going to consider before next session the question of native taxation, with a view to regulating it and removing the anomalies which at present existed, and he would ask him to consider very carefully the position which existed in the Witwatersrand in connection with pass fees, which were levied upon all employers of native labour. In the early days of the Witwatersrand it was found necessary to provide funds to keep the hospitals going, and the pass-fees’ system was introduced. Since then, however, the pass fee had grown into a tax, and was looked upon as a regular source of revenue. He found that last year £350,000 was collected in the shape of pass fees. Practically all that was derived from the Rand. This pass fee was a considerable burden upon the industrial community, because every householder on the Rand had to pay, and if the Minister found it necessary to retain it, then he hoped the greater portion would be devoted to local needs and hospital accommodation, for which purpose it was originally levied.

pleaded on behalf of the magistrates in the Transkei for better housing accommodation. Proceeding, the hon. member said the natives in the Transkei were anxious to have sufficient tanks in which to dip all their cattle.

asked if the Government had considered putting any restriction on the number of natives to be imported from outside the Union?

suggested that the Minister should reply to the questions as they arose. As to the pass fees, they certainly should be devoted to local purposes. The hon. member then drew attention to the salary of the Chief Magistrate of the Transkei. He did not suppose there was an individual officer in the Union who discharged more arduous duties than the Chief Magistrate of the Transkei. Upon his judgment and power of control depended to a great extent the welfare, peace, and good government of nearly a million men. The magistrates in the Native Territories deserved the consideration and thanks of Parliament, but their salaries—in comparison with those of other officials—did not show that the country had any appreciation of their services. (Hear, hear.)

said the hospital tax had worked most successfully in Griqualand West. There were many advantages in the Pass Law, and the fees enabled the provision of free hospitals for the benefit of the natives without any charge on the country.

inquired about item B, travelling expenses, and the sum of £150 for “newspapers.”

asked what were the duties of the Commandant?

stated that the responsibilities placed on the Secretary for Native Affairs were very great indeed, and his work had increased as the result of Union.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

asked: (1) Whether the Minister would, during the recess, consider the advisability of abolishing or curtailing jurisdiction conferred on native chiefs in Bechuanaland by the Imperial Government; (2) whether the Minister would, during the recess, take into consideration the advisability of establishing District Councils in Bechuanaland on lines similar to those existing in the Transkeian Territories; and (3) whether the Minister would take the advantage of the visit of the Prime Minister to England to discuss with the Imperial Government the abolition of the conditions depriving the Union Government of the right of alienating any portion of the native reserves in Bechuanaland?

replied that the matters mentioned by the hon. member had had his attention, particularly the first question with regard to the jurisdiction of native chiefs. He had spent many an hour considering them, and no doubt something would have to be done in the near future. The position at present was not at all satisfactory. With regard to the complaint by his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) that he (Mr. Burton) had not given the consideration which he had promised in connection with the Chief Magistrate in the Transkei, he wanted to say that he had given the utmost consideration to the matter No one appreciated the work done by the Chief Magistrate more than he did, and if he had the power to dispose of public money, he would give him very much more than he got to-day. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman that a more deserving class of Civil Servants than the Magistrates in the Transkei did not exist in this country. They had kept their flag flying under most difficult circumstances. By the flag he meant the flag of civilisation. He agreed that the condition under which they worked far away from civilisation deserved the fullest consideration. The position was that, owing to the unfortunate depression in the country, they had had no increase of salary for years and years, and it was felt that the Government would not be justified in singling out the Chief Magistrate, who had had an increase of £100 during the last two years, for consideration, and at the same time leaving the others unnoticed. It was also felt that the Chief Magistrate’s ease was not one of outstanding hardship. In reply to the hon. member for Griqualand, East, he wished to say again that the difficulty was to single out one locality when there were so many other places with claims. The case was a fair one, and he hoped to deal with it in company with a lot more in the near future. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Queenstown (Sir Bisset Berry), as to small allotments, he said that matter had had, and would have, his serious consideration, as the Government were desirous of doing full justice to the natives. The matter was at present under the consideration of the Waste Lands Committee. As regarded the question of ox-wagon traffic, the position was that ox-wagon traffic was permitted under the regulations from Butterworth up to the Bashee River. Beyond that place the traffic was forbidden. In adopting that prohibition, the Government had been guided by the many urgent representations of its technical advisers as to the danger of the spread of East Coast fever. The Government were, of course, fully alive to the discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the community. The Government hoped to be able to give some relief as the result of a consultation between the Magistrate and the Chief Veterinary Officer on the spot. In reply to the hon. member for Durban (Sir D. Hunter) he pointed out that the Act of Union practically abolished the Natal Native Trust. He hoped that hon. members who were interested in that matter would understand that a small legislative alteration would be required. An Act had been passed in Natal in 1909, by which the Natal Native Trust was continued in Natal; and there was no doubt that that Act was in conflict with the specific provisions of the Act of Union; and as a matter of formality, they would have to repeal that Act of 1909. As to what Mr. Chaplin had said about native passes, there was no doubt that there was a great deal in what he had said; and any hon. member who knew the circumstances must feel the same. The original pass fee had been levied to cover the cost of certain services, but now it formed! a handsome contribution to the revenue of the State; but his hon. friends would understand that they could not now deal with that matter apart from other things; but he hoped in the near future—next session—to deal comprehensively with the whole matter of native taxation. Then they would also deal with that matter. As to Mr. Duncan’s question, he had not taken any steps with regard to the restriction of the introduction of native labour from over their borders, which came from the old sources; but he lived in hopes that they might be able in the future to do so, although he did not say that circumstances warranted their doing so at the present moment; but they had restricted the introduction of native labour from new fields. In reply to Mr. Joubert, he would say that the £1,800 included the expenses of moving the officials of the department, the Minister, end so forth, about throughout the whole of the Union; and he hoped that they would remain well within their estimate. In regard to the £150, that was in regard to subscriptions to newspapers which they required in their office. It was an old principle, and the amount had been reduced from £250.

moved a reduction of £1 in the Minister’s salary, in order, he said, to elicit a more definite statement about the introduction of native labour. He was glad to hear that a stop was put to the extension of the fields from which that labour was recruited; but they wanted more than that: they wanted the Minister to limit the number of those coming in from outside the Union. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in regard to that subject they had not had a Select Committee or a Parliamentary Inquiry; and there were many members of the House who, he ventured to say, had hardly given that matter a thought at all, or, at any irate, not that thought commensurate with the importance of the subject. Was it not time for the Government to call a halt, and for it to say: “We will allow you to keep up the present numbers, but not allow an increase”? The hon. member went on to allude to a previous debate on a similar subject, and to the criticisms of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick. They all, he said, knew the hon. member’s romantic temperament; and he had endeavoured to make him (Mr. Creswell) in some way responsible for the statement that he was in favour of taking white men off the mines and replacing them with natives. Well, he must dispute that. It was a mistake to take just a sentence out of a report without stating what the context was. Why had not the hon. member said that what he (Mr. Creswell) had said was: “I was taking all the white men off the cyanide works, and replacing them by natives, in-consequence of orders received”? What Sir Percy Fitzpatrick said reminded him of a young lady, who, after one of the hon. member’s election meetings, exclaimed: “Oh, it’s just lovely; it’s like a fairy tale.” (Laughter.)

who rose to a point of order, asked whether all this had anything to do with the vote before them?

said that he understood the hon. member was referring to the native labour question.

said he would put the hon. member (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) on the right track. Don’t let the hon. member worry about his (Mr. Creswell’s) doings in his professional capacity when he was administering other people’s money; let him turn more to those things which he had done in public. If the hon. member found him saying that he served with the greatest delight under a distinguished statesman, and then turning round and denouncing that statesman up hill and down dale—

The hon. member must keep to the question.

Then he could certainly find me guilty of something of the kind he suggests. Well, I will leave that alone now. (Hear, hear.) I will leave the hon. member, as he left me, to his own conscience and his own record. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said the Labour party wanted to stop the extension of this system of getting in outside natives. There was no question of dislocating the industry, for the mines could get on well with the present supplies of native labour until the whole matter had been inquired into. The more dependent we were on outside sources, the less were we likely to be masters of our own house.

asked to what extent the Native Affaire Commission’s recommendations had been carried out by the Government? He also urged that the Government should consider the question of doing something more in connection with the native hospital at Umtata.

said that the proper place to deal with the question was on the vote for Provincial Councils.

said that in the native locations in Griqualand West many natives and white men lived together. He urged the Minister to make some provision to get, these locations in more central places than they were at present. When Griqualand West was annexed the natives were put in their present locations, in order to learn farming from white people, but for the past 30 years they had learnt next to nothing!

asked if any compensation had been paid to the wives and families of natives who had been shot in German South-west Africa?

said they were awaiting a communication from the Imperial Government.

said the more natives who were available for the mines, the more possible would it be to continue the system adopted among the natives of working for periods of six months at a time. While that continued, the natives remained healthy, and there would be no need to be legislating in respect of miners’ phthisis and other diseases. He would like to encourage as many natives as possible to go to the mines, because he thought the salvation of the natives who went there lay primarily in the fact that they only went there for six months at a time. The hon. member went on to urge the desirability of training native nurses for native hospitals.

said he thought that the hon. member for Queenstown had misunderstood the point. It was not a question of disturbing the period of service, but still all the natives at present were on the twelve months’ basis. He had been disappointed that he had not heard a statement of policy on the native question, and that made for unrest. The hon. member proceeded to deal with the white workers.

called the hon. member to order.

said he was quite prepared to accept the motion of the hon. member for Jeppe.

I am not going to be silenced in this way. I am here to express an opinion. The hon. member proceeded to deal with the question of white workers, and said: The only whites—

called the hon. member to order.

The only whites (Cries of “Order, Order.”)

Order!

I am in order.

Please confine yourself to the vote.

said he was not talking about the extension of white labour; he was talking of the relationship of white and black which had to be dealt with under that vote. In the past the whites had been teachers of the blacks. The blacks were slowly taking their places, and it was a very serious matter for the whites.

observed that he thought that the amount for fencing would better times the amount set down for dipping tanks.

said he was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government had decided not to extend the field of recruiting the labour supply outside the Union.

drew the Minister’s attention to the prevalence of tuberculosis among natives. It had been said that of the native children going to school at present, between 5,000 and 10,000 would die from tuberculosis before they reached the age of 35 years. He suggested the adoption of drastic measures. At Port Elizabeth the mortality among natives had been greatly reduced by the location being cleaned. Unless steps were taken, he was afraid the mortality would increase to such a degree that before very long there would cease to be a “native question.”

thought something should be done for the natives at the New Brighton Location, Port Elizabeth, in the way of better housing and more ground.

said a deputation had waited upon him with reference to the regulations regarding the residence of natives in the New Brighton Location, where natives who were not voters were compelled to live. As to the vote itself, he thought it was a pity that the whole of the matters affecting the Native Affairs Department were lumped together in one vote. The increase in the salary of the Secretary for Native Affairs from £800 to £1,500, and leaving the salaries of officials in the Transkeian Territories on the old level, would give rise to dissatisfaction. What was the increase of £58,000 on the vote due to? Although the cost of administration had grown nothing more appeared to have been done for the natives.

said the working of the New Brighton Location had resulted in a total loss of £26,000. Under these circumstances, there was not much room for a reduction. Proceeding, he said that when natives from Portuguese East Africa died in the Transvaal their estates were handed over to the representative of the Mozambique Province. This was contrary to the Transvaal law, and the Government was allowing a Convention made with Mozambique to override the law of the Transvaal. The proper and constitutional thing to do would be to bring in a Bill to alter the Transvaal law. Another question was as to the meaning of the item, “Welfare of natives, £4,900.” He should like some particulars in regard to that.

said he thought it but fair for the committee to know that the figure of £90,000 included a very valuable farm. Another thing the hon. member did not know was that this location was built at a famine price.

said that the rents of these natives had been reduced. They were much higher under the beneficent rule of the hon. member’s colleague (Sir E. H. Walton). They were really so high that the natives could not pay them. The late Government of the Cape reduced them, and by so doing increased the revenue of the place. They had a Magistrate at Port Elizabeth, who had taken the greatest interest in this location, and they had now got there a fairly contented community.

said that he had not said a word about the natives being ill-treated. They were well treated by the present Magistrate. The position was very much improved. The rents were not fixed by the right hon. gentleman’s predecessor, the member for Port Elizabeth. The rents were fixed by sir Gordon Sprigg, who was Treasurer-General at the time.

Hear, hear; leave it there.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth reduced the rents, and they have been still further reduced. They were never reduced by one penny by my hon. friend the Treasurer-General of this Colony.

said that he had never said anything about £90,000. As a matter of fact the farm was in the book at £19,000. He added that he thought it was only right that these locations which served large towns should be made to pay their way.

asked whether the Cape Mounted Rifles, under “J,” were whites.

said that he had raised a question with regard to ox-wagon traffic in the Territories. The understanding was that arrangements were being made for ox-wagon traffic from the Bashee to Umtata.

You are quite right; only, unfortunately,

I did not know about that.

said that there was another matter to which he wished to draw attention. A question had been raised in reference to the salary of the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs. What they thought was that the apportionment of the expenditure on salaries was wrong. In 1905 or 1906 the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs was receiving a salary of £650. About 1906 he received an increase or £150. At the present moment this same official was paid £1,500 a year. The Chief Magistrate of the Transkei, who controlled a million natives, drew a salary of £1,050 a year and house allowance. He presumed that the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs received some form of allowance while in Cape Town. The Chief Native Commissioner received £1,200, and the Director and Protector of Natives £1,500, and an allowance for travelling. The enormous increase of one salary was out of all proportion to anything that had been done for other officials. He did not want to see any increase of expenditure, and he, therefore, moved that the item Secretary for Native-Affairs be reduced by £300, which would leave £300 for the Minister to dispose of in case he desired to deal with the salary of the Chief Magistrate.

said he had moved to reduce the Minister’s salary by £1. He did not understand the Minister’s answer as to whether he was prepared to undertake that the number of natives would be limited, as they asked, or whether he was prepared to forego £1.

Forego the £1.

said that, as the matter was treated in such a flippant manner, he would move to reduce the Minister’s salary by £500.

Can a hon. member make two amendments?

The hon. member has moved a reduction of £1.

said that he would move a further reduction of £490 from the Minister’s salary, making £500 in all. They on that side were feeling this matter very keenly. It was most important, not only to the white people of this country, but also to the natives themselves, that the introduction of natives from beyond the borders, from Central Africa at all events, should be curtailed. Knowing the hon. member for Queenstown to be a humane man, he was astonished to hear him say that it was no concern of theirs that these natives, who were brought from Nyasa, were dying at, the rate of 61-per 1,000. He maintained that it was a concern of theirs.

Except liqour.

Yes, you are right. Proceeding, he said it was a very serious matter, not only to the natives, but also to the white traders on the Witwatersrand. The natives were not allowed to purchase from the free white traders. He would also like the Minister to look into the conditions under which material and foodstuffs were supplied to the natives who were close compounded on the Premier mine. If he did so, he (Mr. Madeley) thought he would find something that would astonish him. He would make another appeal to the Minister to give the House an undertaking that the natives who were being imported from Central Africa would be curtailed to just that number which was required to keep up the present standard.

said he could not agree with the reduction moved by the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe). The Secretary for Native Affairs had a tremendous amount of work to do, and he not think that £1,500 was too much. He thought that, instead of reducing the salary of the Secretary, they should increase the salary of the Chief Magistrate. The discrepancy between the two salaries should certainly be remedied, and he thought the way to do it was by increasing the Chief Magistrate’s salary. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought the question of the salary of the Secretary for Native Affairs should be left over for the reorganisation, which must take place soon (Hear, hear.) He considered that the scale of salaries in the Estimates wanted revision. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”) With regard to the remarks made about the appointment of the Secretary for Native Affairs, he said that he held his present post, not owing to favouritism, but entirely owing to his ability. He (Mr. Merriman) had worked with him for many years, and knew that he had a great knowledge of his department. He had saved this country many thousands of pounds. As to his salary, he thought that should be left over for the reorganisation scheme.

said in regard to the employment of tropical natives, who did not form a very large proportion of the total, that the Government were not recruiting them, and as to other natives introduced from beyond the border, he hoped that the Government would not have to continue that longer than was absolutely necessary. As to the ox-wagon traffic, when he had previously answered he was not aware of the latest developments, but he might say that the Prime Minister was now considering whether he could not meet the needs of the people of that district. He was very glad that Dr. Neethling had ref erred to the matter of tuberculosis amongst the natives, which was undoubtedly one of the most serious things in the country at the present moment. It was decimating the native population. He hoped to have the matter investigated. As to what Mr. Schreiner had asked, some of the recommendations of the Native Affairs Commission had, he might say, been carried out and the other recommendations were receiving his attention. In regard to the motion to reduce the salary of the Acting Secretary, he hoped that his hon. friend would not press it. He agreed with everything which had been said by Mr. Merriman as to the extreme competency of that officer, and the hard work which he performed. He (Air. Burton) would be sorry indeed to be saddled with the, work performed by that officer—the native affairs of the whole of the Union—at that salary. He hoped that his hon. friend would not press that for many reasons; it was an acting appointment, and the present officer was far and away the most competent man to appoint, and there was, in fact, no competitor in running with him. The Hon. Minister also replied to Mr. dagger’s question dealing with the administration of the estates of Portuguese natives, but his reply could not be caught in the Press Gallery.

said that he had been careful, when he moved the reduction, to say that the officer in question was a most competent official and an extremely valuable servant. He had moved the reduction to draw attention to the enormous increase of salary given without proper consideration. Continuing, he said that what they were beginning to find out was that there was a great advocacy for economy in the corner where Air. Merriman and Mr. Currey sat, but when any reduction was moved a thousand and one reasons were given why the reduction should not be carried out. (Hear, hear.) He would withdraw his amendment.

said that why he had moved for a reduction was entirely on account of the introduction of natives from outside the Union.

The proposed reduction, moved by Mr. Madeley, was declared negatived.

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

moved to increase the item, “bonus to jam manufacturers,” from £3,000 to £3,373, and the item, “in cidental expenses,” from £100 to £600.

moved to strike out the item, “private secretary to Minister, £505,” and “local allowances to private secretary, £135.” He said he moved this as a protest against the excessive expenses of this office, which was the most expensive office in the Government. The private secretary to the Minister could not have more than an hour’s work a day to do on an average. The office ought never to have been created; it should have been attached to the Treasury. There was nothing personal about his criticism, but he was sure his hon. friend would admit that he was not a commercial man. What did his hon. friend know about preference, or Customs, or Excise?

said he hoped his hon. friend would be able to tell them that night whether the office was so highly necessary, and whether he was the proper person to occupy the position? Could his hon. friend tell the committee the policy of the Government in regard to the encouragement of Colonial industries? He hoped his hon. friend would not say he was awaiting the report of the Industries Commission.

He ought to be.

We have been doing that sort of thing for years. With regard to the jam bonus, he said that certain of these people had found that they could turn the business into a condensed milk factory. They could not get a grant from the Government, so they asked for a loan of £6,090, and offered security in machinery to the value of £11,000 and ten morgen of cultivated land. Here the chance was offered to the Government of encouraging an industry, and he thought that the request for such a small loan should not have been refused. They had all been guilty of this industry encouragement, but not one had given vent to more pious expressions than the Prime Minister. No man had done more to make South African products popular than Sir Pieter Bam. Hear, hear.) South Africa annually imported £350,000 worth of condensed milk. Surely that should not be necessary in a country like this. An absolute revolution had been created in the dairy farming industry in the past few years. Creameries had been established all over the country.

said they would now go from condensed milk to Colonial beer. (Laughter.) Among his constituents were some brewers, who had some grievances. Cape brewers were not allowed to use sugar in the making of their beer, but other South African brewers were allowed to do this. There ought to be Free-trade in the Union, and the conditions of trade should be equalised.

referred to the bonus to jam manufacturers in the Grange Free State. In 1909, £4,000 was paid to these manufacturers, and for this year £3,000 was set down for that purpose. How long was it proposed to continue these payments? He would like to know whether this policy was going to be confined to jam manufacture, or was it going to be extended to other industries?

said that this unfortunate bonus died a natural death on March 5.

moved the deletion of the item, “£3,000, bonus to jam manufacturers. ”

said that he did not want to interfere between the experts—(laughter)—nor was it his business to help the Minister. He thought, however, that they might put the factory and the pastry-cook against each other, and let them square it. (Laughter.)

said that he was unable to support the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town. This House had decided that there should be a Minister of Commerce, and if that were so, that Minister must have a private secretary. It was due to the dignity of the office that he should have ’a private secretary. He moved to reduce the vote by £100, private secretary to Minister. The Minister, in a passionate outburst the other day, said that figures which he (Mr. Currey) had given were “almost dishonest.” He could not reply to the Minister at the time, but those figures were absolutely correct to a sovereign. What he said was that the total of the vote for services, exclusive of establishments, in this department amounted to £8,500, while the salary vote was something like £154,239. He only mentioned these figures when he was comparing the total vote for salaries with the vote for services, exclusive of establishments. He must say that he was surprised the hon. gentleman used that expression about figures which were absolutely correct. He did not say, as the Minister suggested, that it was the whole of the services to be performed. He said it was for services exclusive of establishment. He hoped the Minister would do him the justice of withdrawing that expression that the figures which he used were “almost dishonest.” He wanted to reduce this amount by £100, because in a department so small as this, which was really a revenue-collecting department, for the private secretary to draw a salary of £640 a year was, if he might say so, a waste of really good material. If this officer, whom he did not know even by name, were entitled to draw a salary of this amount, then he said he ought to be employed in some larger sphere of usefulness.

said that the gentleman in question was in the service, and was continuing to receive the salary he got before he became private secretary. He wished to remind his hon. friend (Mr. Currey) that private secretaries did far more work now than they did when the hon. member was a private secretary. They really did more work than the heads of departments. He was proceeding, when

asked if the Minister of Railways had taken over the Portfolio of Commerce and Industries?

Not while my hon. friend is at large. (Laughter.)

Well, give him a chance.

asked whether Mr. Disraeli or Lord Randolph Churchill were merchants? He (Mr. Jagger) said that unless you were trained to a particular post you could not fill it. Would it be believed that Mr. Jagger was not only a merchant and a landed proprietor, but he was in command of the Royal Naval Volunteers —(laughter)—and that for a long time he had gone under the name of Admiral Togo—(laughter)—and they even said that when he went to sea he always got seasick. (Laughter.). As a rule, a farmer took a broader view of a question than a merchant.

said that he was glad that Mr. Sauer had stood up, because he had always thought that he was one of those who preached economy in every branch of the service; so that he was afraid it was almost a case of evil communications corrupting good manners. That vote, in his opinion, was an extraordinary one. The hon. member made some reference to a jam factory, but he was partly inaudible in the Press Gallery. There was, he added, one thing which Mr. Jagger had forgotten—that there was a large amount of work which fell to the Minister: The management of the independent wing of the Government—(laughter)— which was very onerous work, indeed. Mr. Watt, the other day, had spoken of tumbling off the fence on which he had sat, and in the course of his somersaults coming down on the right side, where, it seemed, the butter was. (Laughter.) The pity was that he did not sit on the “right” side of the House, because he (Sir George), being in favour of economy, much regretted that that beautiful carpet of theirs was being worn out by the frequent peregrinations of the “independent” members of Natal. (Laughter.) He did not see why the taxpayers of the country should pay, and much as he esteemed the services of the Minister, he did think that, in spite of the laboured speech of the Minister of Railways, that the office needed a stronger defence.

said he thought it would only be right if he said something in defence of the officers of his department The hon. member for Cape Town accused the department of extravagance, and referred to the salaries paid. But he omitted to state that the £1,800 to the secretary included the salary of the Controller of Excise.

I mentioned that,

said that, perhaps, the salary of the private secretary did seem high; but he would remind hon. members that this office was brought from Natal by his predecessor.

Who?

said he would remind the committee that a new department required the services of a better man than an old-established department. He pleaded guilty to there not being much work to do; but he hoped, with a little more time, to get into an effectual stride. (Ministerial cheers.) He also pointed out that the Convention allowed for ten Ministerial offices.

Not more.

said he was sure that if the Opposition had been in power all the ten offices would have been filled. Dealing with the jam bonus, he said that £15,000 had been paid during the last five years. In spite of Government assistance and protection the company had been unable to make the business pay. He pointed out that bonus ceased at the end of March. He thought the milk factory scheme would pay, but as he did not control the purse—(laughter)—he had not been able to accede to the request for a grant. He was unable to recommend that, with the result he was afraid that the factory would have to close. As to the use of sugar in beer, as far as he could see there was no more reason to prevent the use of sugar in beer-making here than there was in any of the other three Provinces. He was sorry if he had hurt Mr. Currey’s susceptibilities. He did not mean to accuse the hon. member of dishonesty, and if he had done so he regretted it. What he meant to say and still maintained—was, that although the lion, member was correct in his figures, he was not correct in his insinuation. The average cost of the collection of Customs here was 5 per cent., compared with 5 per cent, in Australia, where the Customs duties were higher than they were in South Africa. Sir George Farrar had made some sarcastic remarks about the famous Natal Independent Wing. As far as he (Colonel Leuchars) could remember, the hon. member had walked across the floor of the House just as often as the Natal Independents. (An HON. MEMBER: “More.”) Proceeding, Colonel Leuchars said he was afraid that he would have to use the Industries Commission as an excuse for not doing very much, but it was his intention during the recess of going through the country, so that when the Commission did report he would be able to give it the consideration it would be entitled to. (Cheers.)

said he understood that the policy of the Government was not to encourage industries by bounties. He fancied however, that the Minister would have to change his policy in that respect He was surprised to find that this £3,000 appeared on the Estimates still if the loans ceased on March 31, 1911. Under the circumstances he must persist in the motion for the reduction of the vote.

said he must confess that he was disappointed with the Minister’s answer in regard to the factory in the Free State. The Government had lost money on the transaction, and here was an opportunity for the Government to prevent the money they had put into the factory being wasted.

said that the hon. member had stated that it was the late Government’s fault that that jam factory was now in that position; and the hon. member himself had given the best reason why the Government should have acted as it did. Was it right for the Government to keep on assisting an industry, knowing that as soon as the bonus was no longer given, the whole thing would collapse? He thought it would be better for the Government to await the report of the Industries Commission. Let them support all bona fide industries in the State, and Jet them now start with a clean slate. Previous Commissions had been referred to, but it was a reason for congratulation that their recommendations had not been adopted. The present Commission’s terms of reference were of an entirely different nature. Let them not force the position, but await events. He was, he added, surprised to hear Mr. dagger say that the Minister of Commerce should be a commercial man, because going on that analogy, the Minister of Public Works would have to be an architect, the Minister of Railways an engineer—(An HON. MEMBER: An engine driver !)—and the Minister of Native Affairs a kind of missionary. (Laughter.) And, arguing on those lines, would the hon. member kindly state the qualifications for a Prime Minister? (Laughter.) They must have worthy men for these positions; men who were able to fill these positions.

said he was glad the Minister had the support of his colleagues, but they appeared to treat it as a joke. He would like to point out that the Private Secretary got more than many magistrates in this country. Mr. dagger asked whether they could expect any commercial man to have confidence in the Minister because he was not a commercial? He was redundant, and so he was shoved on to the Department of Commerce. He pointed out that in Natal two officers had been taken on at high salaries, though other officers had been put on pension. There were other cases of men brought from outside which he would refer to on another vote. He said that the work of secretary should be done by a junior. It was a downright extravagant policy, no regard was being paid to the interests of the country in the matter of salaries. The Hon. the Minister said he hoped to build a department, but he (Mr. Jagger) said that he had not got the bricks to build that department. More than that, he hoped he (the Minister) would not be able to build such a department, for the less the Minister interfered with commerce the better it would be for commerce.

said he was astounded at the short-sightedness of some of the speakers who had referred to the appointment. They seemed to think that because there had been no such portfolio in the past it was unnecessary now. He hoped to see more done for industries than for commerce, and he held that Government was perfectly justified in making such an appointment as that of Commerce and Industries. Mr. Merriman had suggested that the Cabinet should consist of ten members. Colonel Leuchars, the hon. member added, had replied very effectively to the criticisms that had been levelled against his department. (Hear, hear.)

said that if they had a Customs tariff, and that fixed for a number of years, this country would, he was sure, have to pay very heavily indeed for any industries which may be built up thereby. He was of opinion that commence and industries should have a representative in the Ministry, but he thought that ten Ministers were not necessary, and that this department could have been tacked on to one of the other portfolios. As to the Minister of Commerce and Industries, he wished to say that he had taken office not at his own wish. He was of opinion that Natal had as much right to be represented in the Ministry as any of the other Provinces.

said that it was in connection with industries that he intended chiefly to devote his efforts. Referring to the question of the jam factory, he said that the amount voted last year had been expended on September 30. and the amount on the Estimates now was to pay for the jam manufactured since September 30, and up to March 31.

said that although the explanation was not as clear as daylight, he would withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Tagger’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Currey’s amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was withdrawn.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Commerce and Industries was agreed to,

asked what was the policy of the Government with regard to Excise, because the Excise was not the same all over the Union; and it was higher in the Transvaal than in the Cape.

asked whether the Minister would give them the policy of the Government in regard to the maintenance of the total prohibition of liquor to natives, which was a very important matter.

said that he was afraid that he could not give Mr. Jagger any information as to the policy with regard to Excise; but there was no doubt that the tendency would be to equalise Excise. He was in favour of total prohibition to natives.

said he could! not understand his hon. friend taking over the office without going into this important matter of the Excise. The point of the Excise was one that should have been immediately investigated. Surely when the Minister said it was the policy of the Government to equalise, he should have studied the question. He did not want his hon. friend to reply alone, because three Ministers had already replied from this important department, in addition to the Minister on the back benches. (Laughter.)

said that the important question of whether the Excise should be 3s. or 4s. did not exercise his mind before he joined the Ministry. He had more important matters to attend to. (Laughter.)

wanted to know the machinery on the Border for preventing spirits being brought into the Cape from other Provinces, the Excise being higher in the Cape than in other Provinces.

observed that whisky imported into the Cape paid a duty of 21s. a gallon, and into the Transvaal 15s. a gallon. What was the Government’s policy in connection with this matter?

stated that the Industries Commission was reporting on the subject of the Customs, and he had no doubt that when its report was considered the question of the Excise would be considered as well.

pointed out that the Act of Union stated that there should be free trade throughout the Union; hut that until Parliament otherwise provided, the different Customs and Excise duties would remain in force. Did they think that Parliament was going to alter these laws in the few days that were left? Were they there to discuss hypothetical cases? They might as well ask Government for its policy regarding the customs duties. That was surely not a matter for the Committee of Supply to deal with. His! hon. friend’s offence was that he was sitting on that side. (Ministerial cheers.) A more unseemly attack upon a Minister he had never known. The whole bottom of the personal attack which had been made upon the Minister was because he sat on that side. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”) It was improper, in fact almost indecent. The Minister had been asked questions which he (Mr. Sauer) said they could not have been serious in asking; he had been asked to give an expression of policy upon matters which could not be dealt with to-day even if they wanted to do so. (Hear, hear.)

We have a perfect right to challenge this vote. This vote is a pure waste of money, and my hon. friend knows it is. This office should have been attached to the office of the Minister of Finance. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Jagger went on to maintain that they had a perfect right to ask for a declaration of policy.

I don’t think we are here to be taught manners by the Minister of Railways. (Hear, hear.) He talks about an “unseemly attack.” Was there ever a more brutal and unseemly attack than that which he made upon a hon. member sitting on this side of the House? We were not talking about Naval Volunteers. Every question that has been asked the Minister in charge of this vote is a fair question. There has never been any personal attack upon the Minister whatsoever. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. member went on to say that he considered the Opposition was justified in asking for a declaration of policy in regard to the Excise.

said that he always thought that any change in the matter of Customs must be done suddenly and without warning. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that the Minister of Railways had dragged personalities into the debate, as he was so fond of doing in the old Cope Parliament. He had had to be called to order, and now he wished to set the example in this House. As regards what had been said about the Minister of Commerce, he wished to say that the attack was not personal. The Opposition were opposed to the appointment because they did not think it necessary. They considered it was a waste of public money. The Prime Minister had appointed the Minister for political reasons, and it was rather hard that the public should have to pay.

said that the attack which was made upon the Minister was due to the fact that he had joined the Ministry. He said that the real reason was because he (Colonel Leuchars) had come over on that side of the House. That was his belief. (An HON. MEMBER: “You are quite right.”) He was not going to the non, gentleman opposite for his information or his manners, and he was not going to be dictated to by him or anyone else. He had done things in that House in his old way, and would continue to do so. What he had said was so; and the hon. gentleman was wrong. It was a pity that he did not acquaint himself with a matter which affected his local constituents when he came to that House.

said that it was a pity that the Minister jumped up and spoke on a subject about which he knew nothing, and that, because he displayed ignorance about something which was not in his own department, he should lose his temper. He became a nuisance, which was a pity. (Laughter.)

He’s very polite

said that they wanted some idea as to the policy of the Government. No one expected the Minister of Commerce to make a statement of policy on his own account— he had only been in office for a few weeks; but the Ministry had been in office for some time, and they should be told that some attempt was being made to establish uniformity.

Not this session.

That means another year. I know no provision in the Constitution stating that you ought to do it this session. I think it is perfectly right that it should be discussed, and I rather take exception to construing all that has been said as a vote of censure, or disparaging references to my hon. friend the Minister.

There is another important matter which arises—the matter of preference. (Laughter.)

We are on Customs now.

The question of preference arises on this matter. What is the Prime Minister going to do about preference at the forthcoming Conference?

said the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had been going in for obstructionist tactics all the evening. The manner in which he had chosen to do so was a rather offensive one towards the Minister of Commerce and Industries. What the Minister of Railways had said was perfectly true. The greater part of the day had been, spent in discussing the Native Affairs Vote. Well, why had not hon. members asked the Government on that occasion what its policy was with regard to uniformity of native taxation? It was not fair to expect the Minister of Commerce and Industries, who had not been a member of the Cabinet for more than a month, to have the future policy at his fingers’ ends. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was curious as to what he (the speaker) intended doing at the Imperial Conference in connection with preferential tariffs. Why was he not asking what would be done in connection with. Defence? He (the speaker) thought they had agreed to finish the work of the session as soon as possible, and he appealed to the leader of the Opposition to put a stop to debates of that nature.

said that the question of native taxation had been discussed on a previous occasion. They were dealing with a new department, and any hon. member had a right to ask any question on policy. All the questions asked had been legitimate questions. There was no desire to obstruct.

moved to report progress.

The motion was negatived.

Vote 37 was agreed to.

On vote 38, Public Works Department, £463,558,

moved to report progress.

Agreed to.

on a point of order, said the House had decided not to sit on Friday. It was now Friday.

The House did not decide to sit on Friday.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Saturday.

The House adjourned at 12.8 a.m. (being Friday, 14th April).