from inhabitants of. Boshof, Orange Free State, praying that the regulations of the Agricultural Bank be so amended that farmers may obtain advances wherewith to buy draught oxen (three petitions).

from residents of Belfast, against the admission of coloured persons as advocates and attorneys (four petitions).

from inhabitants of Belfast, against the solemnisation of marriages between Europeans and coloured persons (four petitions).

from inhabitants of Polela, Natal, for construction of a railway, Donnybrook to Underberg.

as Chairman, brought up the report and minority report of the Select Committee; on Public Education. He moved that me reports and evidence be printed, and put down for consideration on Thursday next.;

seconded.

moved that the report be read by the Clerk of the House.;

pointed out that the first part of the report dealt with a summary of the existing; laws regarding education, and the second part dealt with the recommendation. Perhaps it was the recommendation they wished to hear.

moved that the recommendation he read.

seconded.

pointed out that there was no notice on the paper.

said the procedure was this, that if it was a short report, very often Mr. Speaker read it, but if it was a lengthy report, the proper course was that it be set down for consideration at some future date. It had never been customary to read lengthy reports.

Yes, sir, the Raid report was read.

The motion that the report be printed was agreed to, and the report set down; for consideration on Thursday.

Revised statements, South African Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works in progress and proposed, 31st May, 1910, to 31st March, 1912.

complained that they could not hear the Minister of Railways in the “combuis” of the House. (Laughter.)

as Chairman, brought up’ the report of the Select Committee on the Bill.

The report was set down for consideration on Wednesday next.

moved that the report of the Select Committee on the Poortje Township be now considered.

The motion was agreed to, and the report was adopted.

moved the following amendment to clause 4: To omit “in the manner hereinafter prescribed,” and to add at the end of the clause, “the surtax shall be levied, collected, and paid by means of stamps affixed in the manner prescribed by regulation to the tin, box, packet, or other immediate container of the cigarettes, and shall be payable whether or not Customs duty is leviable on the first importation of such cigarettes into the Union, or when they are cleared from a bonded warehouse.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved to add at the end of subsection (a), “and cigarettes manufactured in the Union and stored in any bonded warehouse within the Union as long as they are so stored.” Mr. Alexander said his object in moving this amendment was to give the South African manufacturer of cigarettes the same advantages as were given to the importer of oversea cigarettes. He could not understand why the Minister had refused to accept his amendment whilst the Bill was in committee. He did not authorise the Government to make these regulations; by his amendment he only gave the Government the power to make such regulations as it thought fit. As the Bill was at present, the man who imported cigarettes was going to be placed in a better position than the South African manufacturer. The latter could not remove cigarettes from his factory, which might be a small one, to a bonded store, without paying stamp duty, whereas the man who imported cigarettes; Could keep them in bond, and had not got to pay stamp duty. He could not see why South African manufacturers should not be placed in the same position as the man who imported cigarettes from oversea? If the Government accepted his amendment, a great concession would be conferred upon the Colonial manufacturer. He hoped that this permissive clause would,: be accepted; it certainly would not embarrass the Government.

seconded.

said he hoped the Government would accept the amendment. He knew the Government wanted to encourage the local manufacturer rather than the importer, and he thought the acceptance of the amendment was a means of doing so. As the Bill stood, the Government encouraged importation of cigarettes, because it gave the importer the right to put his stuff in a bonded warehouse, which it did not give to the local man.

said he could not accept the amendment. There was no necessity for it. (Ministerial “Hear, hear.”) The position of the manufacturer of cigarettes was precisely the same as that of the merchant who had goods in a bonded warehouse. The bonded ware house was created for the purpose of storing goods, which were liable for Customs, coming from oversea, and in the case of the manufacturer of cigarettes within the Union, he was not called upon to stamp his cigarettes so long as he kept them in his warehouse. It was only when he removed cigarettes from his premises that he was liable to the stamp duty. He thought it would be most dangerous to allow cigarettes to be moved backward and forward without first of all being stamped. If the amendment were agreed to, it would necessitate an alteration of the Customs law, as bonded warehouses were only used for the purpose of keeping goods which were liable for Customs coming from oversea.

The amendment was negatived.

The Bill was then read a third time.

could not accept the amendments of the Senate in so far as the word “respektievelik” had been altered into “zoals het geval moge zijn.” The Senate, he said, had made several mistakes in the Dutch version, and he would be obliged to rise several times lest an enactment were placed on the Statute-book that would give rise to difficulties in the future.

said he had much pleasure in supporting the Minister.

The Senate’s amendment was rejected.

said that the word “alsdan” in the definition of “President” was redundant, and he moved to omit the word.

seconded.

considered the word an improvement.

The amendment to omit “alsdan” was agreed to.

The Senate’s amendment, as thus amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3,

said he was very sorry, but as the words stood in the amended Dutch version it conveyed no sense. A verb had been omitted, which spoilt the context.

said that if the Hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill would enlighten the House it would aid members in voting.

said his hon. friend the Minister of Justice, did not perhaps know that the words he indicated were a translation of an amendment in the English. If his hon. friend would look at the English he would find there was an amendment made there of which this Dutch purported to be a translation. The clause was not exceptional English, because it mixed up some things with the punishment that followed them. If the words proposed by his hon. friend were added he did not think there would be any objection.

asked who was responsible for the translation?

said that it was impossible to say what was done in the Senate. All that the House could do was to accept or reject the amendment made by the Senate.

The amendments in line 34, in the Dutch version, were negatived.

The amendment in lines 53 and 54, was put to omit “van vergrijpen,” and to substitute “bij de pleging van enige van zodanige daden, zaken, of dingen zoals hierin verklaard overtredingen van deze Wet te zijn.”

moved: To retain “van vergrijpen,” and to omit “bij de pleging van enige van zodanige daden, zaken, of dingen zoals.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

May I put a question to the Minister now?

What is that?

It is in connection with this Bill.

Well, the Bill is now finished.

moved that “Minister of Railways and Harbours” he deleted for the purpose of inserting the word “Administration.” This was as the South Africa Act laid down.

seconded.

said he did not think it would be right to accept the amendment. The Minister was a separate entity, and was responsible to Parliament, but the Administration was not.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 14,

moved to add the following new sub-section, viz.: “(c) The Controller and Auditor-General may examine upon oath, declaration, or affirmation (which oath, declaration, or affirmation he is hereby empowered to administer) all persons whom he shall think fit to examine respecting the receipt or expenditure of money on any stores respectively affected by the provisions of this Act, and respecting all other matters and things whatever necessary for the due performance and exercise of the duties and powers vested in him.”

seconded.

said he could not accept the amendment. The other day when they considered the pro: posed amendments of the Select Committee on Public Accounts a clause very similar to the one now moved was fully discussed, and the committee of the whole House deliberately decided to reject it. He did not wish to waste the time of the House by again using the same arguments, which would be quite fresh in the minds of hon. members. He hoped the House would reject the motion.

said he recollected the arguments used on the last occasion, and the principal one advanced by Mr. Hull was that the Auditor-General had no power to examine on oath. (Cheers.) Now that Mr. Jagger proposed to give the Auditor-General the power, the Minister was met with his own argument.

moved, as an amendment, seconded by Mr. IW. D. BAXTER: In line 4, after “receipt” to omit “of” and to substitute “or.”

moved, as a further amendment, seconded by Mr. W. RUNCIMAN: To omit “on” and substitute “or” in line 4, and to omit “respectively” in line 5.

explained that it was for the very purpose mentioned by Sir H. Juta that he brought the amendment forward.

said he could not see the objection to investing the Auditor-General with as full powers as possible. (Cheers.) That was all they asked for in this clause, and as a very similar clause was carried in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, he really thought it was a very fair thing to ask the House to confirm the committee’s action. (Opposition cheers.) The main argument of the Minister of Finance the other day was that the Auditor-General had not power to take evidence on oath. Now, however, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) gave that power, and the Minister still said “No,” and the only reason for that attitude, as far as he could see, was that they wanted to break down, to some extent, the power of the Auditor-General.

said he wanted to point out that this amendment went further than any other law in South Africa. Now, his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) was against autocracy, but he wished to give the Auditor-General powers which were not possessed by the Chief Justice of South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) He could only administer the oath and take the evidence of a person under judicial procedure. Here, however, the House was asked to give the Auditor-General powers under no judicial procedure. The House was asked to give the Auditor-General powers to call upon any person in South Africa to give evidence on oath before him. A man might be called upon to give evidence before him and incriminate himself, and he had not the privilege which he had in the Supreme Court. He did not know of any civilised country in the world where there was a law which the hon. member proposed to place upon the Statute.

said he did not see the necessity for any man to incriminate himself. No man was forced to do so, whether in a Court of Law, or before the Auditor-General. (Ministerial cries of “Yes.”) This amendment did not say anything of the kind. It said that the Auditor-Genera1 might examine upon oath, and so one might in a Court of Lew. But one was not bound to incriminate himself, and the Minister of the Interior knew that quite well. The same right which a man had by common law of refusing to answer a question which incriminated himself, he had under this clause. (Cries of “No.”) This clause did not take away that right. This was no reason for not accepting the amendment. In ‘fact, it was not the real reason.

said that the Minister of the Interior had stated that the powers which were proposed to be given to the Auditor-General were not possessed by anybody else in South Africa, but he would like to point out that recently they passed an Act of Parliament —the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act—under which the Chairman of Committees was empowered to administer the oath, and, for the life of him, he could not see where the difference came in between a member of Parliament sitting an his capacity of Chairman of Committees, being empowered to administer the oath, as against the administering of the oath by the Auditor-General. Furthermore, he would like to point out that as far as Natal was concerned, under the Criminal Law Procedure Act. A Magistrate had power to administer the oath on suspicion of an offence having been committed. Now, he would be the last to support anything in the nature of a Star Chamber, and he would like to say that this clause was not introduced with a view of persecuting anybody. Under this provision, if anybody were suspected of an offence, the Auditor General would have the power to summons him before him, and possibly obtain a satisfactory explanation. Surely that was better than forcing the Auditor-General to set the criminal law against him. That the Auditor General would have the power to summon persisted in his opposition to the proposal. He could not help thinking with his learned friend (Sir Henry Juta) that there was some other reason for not accepting the amendment.

said he could not agree with the Minister of Finance in not accepting the amendment, but he did not think there was any sinister motives or second reasons, as had been in sinuated. He considered that the power which was proposed in the amendment was necessary and useful. It had proved necessary and useful in the past, and he would vote for the amendment.

said that the objections raised by the Minister the other day had been re moved by the proposal moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He was their officer, the officer of Parliament, whom they had appointed to protect public moneys. He was only allowed to exercise this power when he thought there had been some malversation. He could not for the life of ‘him conceive any reasons for this opposition on the part of the Government.

said he thought there was danger of some con fusion arising in regard to this amendment. From the speeches that had been made by some hon. members, it would ap pear that he had been charged with inconsistency with the attitude he took up a few days ago. He denied that he had been guilty of any inconsistency. In the Select Committee this very amendment now moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, was moved by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, and what happened? He (Mr. Hull) took up then precisely the same line as he took up now. He said that this was an unnecessary power. The result was that the right hon. gentleman did not get a single member of the committee up stairs to support him in the amendment.

It was never put.

said he objected to this for the same reason as he had objected before. This power had not been given in any civilised country in the world.

said that they had been told by the Minister of! the Interior, backed up by the Minister of Finance, that this proposal was unknown to any other Legislature which could be quoted, and that no civilised country had adopted legislation of this character. Was New Zealand a civilised country? Was the Commonwealth of Australia a civilised country? Sir Thomas quoted from the Public Revenues Act of New Zealand and the Commonwealth Debt Act to show that similar clauses had been embodied.

Now read the law of Great Britain.

I unfortunately have not the law of Great Britain before me—

I have it

But I have, I think, read sufficient to convince the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior that they were not justified in making a statement to this House that no civilised country has introduced legislation of the character proposed by my hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, he said he thought he had ample justification for saying that his hon. friend had only given a somewhat cursory attention to this important matter. What was in the mind of the Select Committee was that the Auditor-General, who was the servant of Parliament, should have every opportunity, by every means that it would be possible to place at his disposal, to find out wherever there had been or were likely to be irregularities: in the expenditure of public money. Under the circumstances, he hoped the Government would reconsider the position.

said that he understood that the purport of the amendment was that the Auditor-General would have the power of making a person give evidence against and incriminating himself.

No, that is not the, case.

said that he was afraid that if that amendment were passed, a man might commit two offences, for if: he were guilty of theft or fraud against the State, he would practically be forced into perjury before the Auditor-General, so as to get off. He opposed the amendment.

said that he would appeal to the legal members of the House that there was no legal difficulty in this matter. They had exactly similar clauses in the Arbitration Acts. Arbitrators had the right to administer the oath, but they had no power to compel a man to incriminate himself. There was nothing in the clause as moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central which said that any man was compelled to answer questions. He hoped hon. members would vote for this matter on its merits.

said that when a similar matter had been before the House he had voted against it, by mistake. He thought that the amendment moved by Mr. dagger was a desirable one, as the Auditor-General was an officer of that House, and should be given every power; to investigate matters which affected the finances of the State. The amendment would not compel anyone to appear. It was really for the better protection of the officials themselves. At the same time he took exception to the insinuations as to the Minister’s attitude.

said that as to what had been said about the arguments previously used in the House, he thought that the Minister of Finance had said that the powers of the Auditor-General were not strong enough. Now Mr. dagger had moved an amendment which strengthened the Auditor-General’s hands. No one need incriminate himself if that amendment were agreed to, and he would vote in favour of Mr. dagger’s amendment, —he considered it his duty to do so—because they should give the Auditor-General every power when he was dealing with the finances of the State. It was to the public interest that any fraud against the State, should be brought to light. The amendment would assist the really honest official who got into difficulties.

said he wanted to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to one fact in his speech. He Said that it would be an unheard-of thing, but he would like to direct his attention to page 10, section 20, of the Mines Regulation Bill, where they gave the same power to the Inspector of Mines. If it was inconsistent in the one case, surely it was inconsistent in the other, and he thought that, at any rate, the Government should have a semblance of consistency They refused the power to the Auditor-General, who was a gentleman with a high education, but gave it to a man who might not have a high education, and he would ask hon. members to see that while they were objecting to this they were going to strain at a gnat on the one side and swallow a camel on the other.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved: In line 1, after “shall” to insert “forthwith upon the completion of the advance”; in line 3 after “Act” to insert “and where the advance is made in respect of more than one holding the amount which each owner is liable to pay ”; in line 4 after “person” to insert “or per sons ”; in line 5 after “holding” to insert “or holdings”; in line 7 after “holding” to insert, “or holdings”; to omit subsection (4); and in lines 19 and 20 to omit “signed by the Secretary of the Agricultural” and substitute “issued by the.”

seconded.

said this meant that a man had only to notify after the completion of the advance but should not the Registrar of Deeds or someone else be notified before the advance?

said that he thought it was better to do so after, because if they did so before there would be double the number of entries to be made in the books, and he was in favour of the procedure being as simple as possible.

The amendments were agreed to.

New clause 10 was further amended.

The remaining amendments were agreed to. ‘

moved the deletion of the words “or immovable” in line 39. The effect of this would be that it would not be necessary to pass brokers’ notes when a sale of immovable property took place.

Agreed to.

Clause 13 was negatived.

On clause 16,

moved to add at the end of sub-section 1: “Nothing in this sub-section contained, relating to a deed or declaration, shall be construed as applying to the transfer of a marketable security available to or in favour of bearer ”

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, consideration of which was set down for Wednesday.

said he desired to have the Speaker’s ruling on the following two points: (1) Whether the amendments to the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Bill standing on the paper in the name of the Minister of Mines providing for (a) constituting a Compensation Board; (b) establishing a Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Fund; (c) rendering it obligatory for miners to contribute to the fund; and (d) extending the payment of compensation to native labourers, do not transcend the scope of the Bill as agreed to at the second reading, and whether any or all of these amendments can be dealt with by Committee of the Whole House on the Bill without a special instruction from this House? and (2) whether it will be competent for the House on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, to discuss the amendments of which notice has been given?

I shall first deal with the last question put to me by the hon. member for Queenstown. No notice of amendments to Bills can be given until the principle of the Bill has been affirmed at the second reading. After the second reading has been taken, amendments which are to be proposed in committee can be placed upon the paper. Consequently, upon the question that the Speaker leave the chair, these amendments are properly before the House, and can be discussed. I may point out that it has been the practice of the late Cape House of Assembly to allow a discussion of the principle of a Bill on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, though this is not the present practice of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Queenstown (Sir Bisset Berry) raises four other points, one of which at least is important. These points are the proposed constitution of a Compensation Board, the proposed establishment of a Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Fund, the proposal to extend the question of compensation to native labourers, and the proposal to render it obligatory upon miners to contribute to the proposed Compensation Fund. The first two points appear to me to deal with mere machinery arising generally out of the whole Bill, and it will be competent for the committee to deal with them without an instruction. With regard to the question of extending the compensation to native labourers, I am of opinion that it will be competent for the committee, if so desired, to exclude the word “white” from the definition of “miner” in the Bill as read a second time, and therefore also this proposed provision it will be competent for the committee to deal with. As to the question, however, of rendering it obligatory upon miners to contribute to the fund, I am of opinion that this constitutes a new question which, if adopted, will involve an important alteration in the title of the Bill. It is clear to me that at the second reading of the Bill the principle then discussed did not contemplate such a new principle as is here proposed, and I have already informed the Hon. the Minister of Mines that it will not be competent for him to move in this direction in Committee of the Whole House on the Bill unless a special instruction in that behalf is previously given by the House.

I would like to avail myself of your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and will give notice that to-morrow the House go into committee to consider the following: That it be an instruction to the committee to consider the proposed amendment for rendering it obligatory upon the miners to contribute towards the payment of compensation, and, if necessary, to amend the title of the Bill accordingly.

asked for the Speaker’s ruling as to whether they could discuss the subject of which the Minister had just given notice, and whether, in discussing the Bill, they could discuss the question of workmen’s contributions?

The fact of notice having been given will not debar hon. members from dealing with every phase of the subject before them.

asked the Minister of Mines not to force the measure through the House now, as there were so many important amendments on the paper that they would not have sufficient time to compare all these new proposals with the original proposals contained in the Bill. He fully sympathised with these miners, and hoped that something would be done for them; but if that disease was to go on spreading, and the State had to go on paying compensation, it was very hard that the taxpayers should have to have that additional burden imposed on them, when people went into these mimes knowing full well what dangers awaited them. Was it not better adequately to ventilate the mines, or to provide means to lay the dust? He thought that at this late stage of the session it was a very dangerous thing to introduce principles like those contained in the Bill. He appealed to the Minister of Mines to postpone the Bill for six months. If once they started with miners it might later happen that the principle of paying compensation to workers would be extended to others. The Bill had been so radically altered that they wanted six months to consider it.

said it was a little bit difficult to discuss this matter, because, as the hon. member for Queenstown had pointed out, it was difficult to know which Bill to discuss. (A VOICE: “Both.”) Well, the Bill which was originally presented to the House was one which he and his colleagues recognised as an honest attempt to redeem the promises made at the beginning of the session, although they did not agree with every clause in it. The day before yesterday, however, they suddenly found that the Minister had got a brand-new Bill, and he must confess that the feeling left on his mind was a most painful one. The principle laid down in the original Bill was that the person to be compensated was the miner, and the person to pay compensation was the employer, mitigated to this extent, that, recognising its responsibility in the past in not having taken better measures, the State should contribute in the case of those who were at present suffering. Now, however, they found that the men under the new Bill had to pay their own compensation. He thought the Minister would have done vastly better to have adhered to the lines of his original measure, and he hoped it was not too late to urge, him to do so. The original Bill had appealed to the miners upon the Rand; they had nothing much to complain about. He had, however, received a long telegram from the Miners’ Association protesting in the strongest possible manner against the present proposals. Now; the original will recognised that a man ruined in health had to be compensated, and the machinery provided was simple, and, he ventured to say; effective. It recognised the principle which the Minister seemed to be throwing overboard, that the burden of providing compensation rested with the mine employer. It also provided that as a man did not get miners’ phthisis all on one mine, the burden should be distributed amongst the mine centres in proportion to the length of time the man worked on each mine. It had often been said in that House that the prosperity of South Africa was largely dependent upon the gold mining industry—upon the gold output. Who were the men who produced that output? (A VOICE: “The natives.”) His hon. friend (Mr. Lionel Phillips) said they were the natives. Well, he was very glad to hear that admission. Did he not also depend upon his white men? Were they not absolutely necessary to him? If they were not necessary, he would be very glad to hear the admission, because it would be taken as a distinct warning of the direction in which the hon. member (Mr. Phillips) wanted to go. Clearly if the country was benefited by the labour of the men who produced the gold, it was its duty to see that they got fair play. It was also claimed that the contraction of the diesease was due to the men themselves. Well, he thought it would be better to defer his remarks on that subject until they came to the question of the men’s contribution. The main conditions producing miners’ phthisis were conditions altogether outside the men’s control. They were conditions which were only under the control of those who controlled the mines, and in any legislation of this sort he thought this should be recognised as the underlying principle. He was afraid it was a difficult thing to discuss this matter at the present stage. Had it not been for these extraordinary amendments, he would not have felt it necessary to discuss them at all, but he wanted to point out to the Minister of the Interior some virtues in this eldest child of his that he was now discarding and sending out into the world without any recognition, because his first thoughts were very much better than his second. In the retrospective clauses, the Minister recognised two grades in the disease. They found, unfortunately, that in the prospective clauses he did not carry that same principle into force. When it came to the question of the amount of the compensation, they wanted to make their position clear, that while they did not think it was sufficient, still, it was a vast advance on nothing at all, and that, in order to get some compensation, they would be glad of any assistance that this Bill gave. A great deal had been made out of the fact that this legislation had not been introduced in other countries. He thought the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) in his speech on the second reading, drew attention to the fact that in Australia there had been no legislation of this kind. He also drew their attention to the fact that in New Zealand legislation had been in existence for a short time, but that it was then repealed. He (Mr. Creswell) had been at the trouble to look into the authorities in the library, just to see what weight they ought to attach to these considerations. He found that the gold mines of Bendigo were the mines where they had heard most of miners’ phthisis proper. It appeared that While the average life of a miner there was about 53 years, in this country it was 33 to 35 years. In the whole of Bendigo there was only a matter of 4,000 quartz miners altogether, out of a total white population in Australia of about six millions; while in this country we had 10,000 men employed on the mines out of a total white population of about a million and a quarter. As to New Zealand, he found that in the year preceding the repeal of the Act the only deaths from miners’ phthisis occurred in the Auckland district. There were 4,338 quartz miners employed, and the only deaths from miners’ phthisis were three men (aged 55 to 60). It was clear that in New Zealand the extent of mortality from this disease was quite inconsiderable. He could quite understand then that it should be regarded as a very small matter. He thought the House ought not to study precedents from countries where the matter was not so urgent as it was here. They should take the problem they had now before them, and try and deal with it in the way to give the most substantial justice. In the Bill first introduced by the Minister they recognised an attempt to deal with a very difficult subject, He thought if the Minister followed the line he (Mr. Creswell) was advocating, he would do a great deal to remove what was a gross scandal in this country. If he went on the lines that he had sketched in the new Bill before the House, he would satisfy no one; he would not do a real justice as his first measure had done, and he would run the risk of wrecking the measure altogether, and leaving many men and many wives unprovided for, and their torture would be continued.

said he would like to know how that House could be accused of torture. They did not take these people to work at the mines, nor, were they responsible for the conditions under which they worked. Therefore, he thought it was a most unfair Statement to go forth to the world that they were compelling these men to work there at all.

I did not say so.

Well, then, I misunderstood the hon. member. There is no question a great evil does exist. We do not know the magnitude of the evil. The right hon. gentleman went on to quote from reports by Native Sub-Commissioners in the Transvaal, contained in a Blue-book issued by the Transvaal Native Affairs Department. The Sub-Commissioner at Blaauwberg reported as follows: “Consumption is becoming a very serious disease amongst the natives returning from work on the mines; and I consider some form of compensation should be given those suffering—or more precaution taken to prevent their contracting the disease when returning from underground.” The Sub-Commissioner at Haenertsburg reported: “Miners’ phthisis appeared to be gradually increasing. One chief informed me that, this form of disease had claimed more victims than malarial fever had.” The Sub-Commissioner at Potgietersrust reported: “I regret to state that a number of natives still continue to return from the mines affected with miners’ phthisis, which in course of time results fatally. Cases have been known to occur where strong and healthy young men have proceeded to the mines, returned later on broken in health, and proceeded home to die.” So far as the natives were concerned, they had in their own districts unfortunately confirmation of the effect of this disease and those kindred diseases upon natives going up to the work at the mines—a native population, he was bound to say, unequalled in the world for physique and’ health, until they went up and learnt our vices and contracted these terrible diseases. Then, as to the effect on white people, he did not know whether any of them had seen a paper which recently appeared in the “South African College Magazine.” The right hon. gentleman quoted at some length from the article to show the terrible nature of the scourge among white employees underground. Then there was a long account pointing out the means for preventing this disease, and how the writer, who was an underground miner himself, carried out experiments with the dust, and found, by using certain precautions, how to avoid it. There was no question, therefore, from all the evidence, as to the magnitude of the disease, but how to deal with it was another thing. We proposed to do what is done in no other country in the world, and that was, that the State should contribute to it. Only in regard to those people who were there, it might involve the State in a liability of some hundreds of thousands of pounds, because, apparently, from what one knew, there were about 10 per cent, of the miners affected with this disease, and who, therefore, would become claimants upon any State aid. Now, what right had we to put that burden on the taxpayers of this country?

What are they paid?

From £300 to £600 a year.

No.

Well, no. Proceeding, he said also they were the most intelligent class of workers. They understood when they went down below, and knew the risks they were running. They were not like those natives whom he had mentioned before—poor, ignorant semi-savages, who go down there and were exposed to these risks, not knowing the risks they ran. These men knew the risks they ran. A man when he first contracted this disease knew he was contracting it but he continued to go on working. They were nor like those people who were dealt with in the English Act, which was so much admired by his hon. friend. That Act dealt with the miserable victims of lead glaze and phosphorus poisoning, people who had to struggle to keep body and soul together, and had no means for providing for their wives and children. Those with whom he was dealing were men who were well-to-do. They were well-to-do indeed, and they went on working. They pitted their lives in a gamble for gain against death.

No.

Yes, they love the game. Men play where death must win. They do it, and know death must win. Proceeding, the hon. member said these men were responsible to a large extent for the whole evil, and the other people who were responsible were the mine-owners. There were two classes: the mine-workers and the mine-owners. The mine-owners, who, for the sake of increasing their gains, employed these rock drills, which were the means of producing the dust which was so fatal to everybody who went down to an underground working. The mine-owners were responsible for the purpose of increasing their gains. They got the profits for it. The miners got the profits in enormous wages—three times the wages that were paid in Australia; and the mine-owners got the profit by a gigantic output which enabled them to pay dividends much larger in proportion to their capital than any other industry in the world. And why should the genera taxpayer be called in? The responsibility rested entirely, in this matter, with the mine-owners and the mine-workers, and those two classes should settle the matter between them, because there were preventive measures. This was not a non-preventible disease. It was preventable. Why were not these measures adopted? Because it was too expensive. There was a machine, he believed, called the atomiser, which was too expensive; but there was a cheaper machine, the spray. But the miners found that it was so inconvenient to use it that they laid it aside; and there the mine-workers were to blame, because they would not use the machine.

They do not get the water.

Then it is the mine-owner who is to blame, but the thing lies between the two. Proceeding, he said the mine-owner said: “We supply you with these things,” and the mine-worker said, “It is inconvenient and troublesome to use them. It takes time, and time is money. We shall earn less money if we use them, and, therefore, we won’t use them.” And it was the mine-owner alone who could compel these men to use them. And so if they would not use them, the mine-owner should say, “Out of the mine you go.” And the people who refused to use these things were net only imperilling their own lives, but the lives of the poor miserable savages who went down also. Now, he did blame the mine-owners if they did not supply these things, and the water for their use; but if they did supply them, then the miners were to blame; and the mine-owners also, because they did not see that they were used. Now, the State was asked to contribute to this thing. Why? Hundreds of widows were refused pensions every day in that room upstairs—widows of State servants, who brought to them the pitiable state of their affaire; but they had to refuse them. Yet they were prepared to go to the relief of the people who were responsible for this state of affairs. No, that was not charity beginning at home. They must look after their own servants first, and the wives of those servants. They were grieved for these people, but the only thing they could do was to follow the example of other countries who had more experience in these matters. Even in a country where they had a Labour Ministry, that Ministry did not think it necessary for the State to go to their assistance. He defied them to find any country in the world where it said that the State was to step in. Take the English Act, which his hon. friend was so fond of. It was a simple thing. Replying to an interruption, Mr. Merriman said: Would you like to have a similar disease scheduled too? The hook-worm is also on the Rand. You might like to have that scheduled also. Proceeding the hon. member quoted from the English Act the clause dealing with the compensation of workers for death or incapacity due to the contracting of certain diseases, among which were anthrax, lead poisoning, mercury poisoning, phosphorus poisoning, and arsenic poisoning. The hon. member mentioned another disease, the name of which was inaudible. (Mr. Madeley laughed.) There is nothing particular to laugh at about these things. I am glad to see that the workman’s party sees something comic in the reading out of a list of diseases. I see something terrible in it, because these are the victims of civilisation. Therefore, I say they should be received with anything but laughter. But I am pleased to see that my hon. friend finds something comic in this matter. If the man had no dependants, they did not pay compensation to his legal heir, they simply paid his funeral expenses—£20, he thought, was the limit both in New South Wales and New Zealand. Anxious as they might be to give compensation to these workmen, there was no need to compensate anyone who was not dependent on a man. (Hear, hear.) Then there was a sort of measure for protecting both employer and employee in the payment of this compensation. Here in this Bill they had nothing of this sort. They had had one Bill before them, which it was extremely difficult to discuss, because there was no definite policy, it was simply a sort of trimming their sails to meet the blast. (Hear, hear.) The way they had dealt with this matter was no credit to them. They put an important matter like this, dealing with a hideous disease—they put it on the paper six weeks ago, and it was discussed in a partial sort of way, and then it disappeared —sank low down out of sight. Then it suddenly reappeared, rose to the surface, it was read a second time in a hurry, and some who wanted to discuss the matter had no opportunity to do so, then, hey, presto, the scene changed, and they had an entirely new Bill involving a new principle put upon the Votes and Proceedings, where it was difficult to attract attention, and where if it had been an ordinary matter it would not have attracted any attention at all. He did not think that this was right. It was the second time that this had been done, and if it was continued they would certainly get into trouble.

said he found himself in agreement to a certain extent with the members for Victoria West and Jeppe. He also thought that this procedure of throwing a new Bill at the head of the House was not one that would: meet with the approval of hon. members, and he hoped they would not see it again. (Hear, hear.) Everyone in the House, he believed agreed that there was need of some form of compensation, and, secondly, that there was need of some procedure which would stamp out the disease, and, thirdly, that whatever procedure was adopted it should not cause friction between employers and employees. (Hear, hear.) It should be a procedure that would weigh fairly all the interests involved, and meet each case fairly. (Hear, hear.) That, however, was an ideal extremely difficult to realise, because, as Mr. Merriman observed, so far this matter had not been dealt with by legislation where mining operations existed. He (Mr. Chaplin) would direct the hon. gentleman’s attention to the very serious state of things that prevailed in Cornwall in regard to miners’ phthisis. Under the Act this disease could be inserted by the Minister, and yet neither Minister nor Legislature dealt with this particular disease in a way that the right hon. gentleman recommended. The report of 1904 stated that the death rate had been very high among miners over 40, and had very greatly increased during the last few years among miners from 25 to 45 years of age. With regard to lung diseases, the death rate among the miners in Cornwall was 8 to 10 times greater than the corresponding death rate among coal miners. If such legislation had been found reasonably possible, Great Britain would have dealt with the matter. The hon. member for Jeppe had given them to understand that the reason the matter had not been dealt with was because there was no miners’ phthisis, and that the miners had therefore taken no interest in it, but the moment this was put in the Workman’s Compensation Act the employers insisted upon medical examination to protect themselves, and the miners refused to submit to medical examination. Therefore the legislation was withdrawn. As to Bendigo, there were 1,500 more cases of phthisis there than on the Rand. At Bendigo it was also found in conjunction with tuberculosis, but on the Rand they had not got to that stage yet. He could not accept the argument that the matter was so trifling that the Australian Government did not think fit to tackle it.

asked what was the contribution to the refreshment-room, which he was informed did not pay?

said the Government had arranged for the Railway Catering Department to do the work. If there was a deficiency, he would pay for it. What the loss was at present, he was not prepared to say, but it was very much less than he at one time feared.

The railway will continue to pay the loss?

I did not say that.

said that if there was a loss, the refreshment rooms should be abolished, because there was ample opportunity of obtaining refreshments in Cape Town.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he was told that the carpet in the library cost something over £400, and he would like to ask who was responsible for the expense?

I understand our predecessors were responsible, sir, and I hope that will mollify my hon. friend (Mr. dagger). (Laughter.)

asked what arrangements were going to be made in regard to “Hansard”? He wanted to know whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing the question this session.

replied that the House ought to have, and would have, an opportunity of discussing the question. Owing to the pressure of business, however, it had not been possible to deal with the subject, although he hoped the House would have an opportunity very soon of discussing it. In the meantime, he did not know whether it was not advisable to reduce the vote for “Hansard.” The committee recommended £4,000, and it was certain, whatever happened, that that amount would not be exceeded, and, under the circumstances, without prejudicing the report of the Select Committee, he thought they ought to reduce the amount from £6,000 to £4,000. He moved accordingly.

said he did not quite understand the object of the reduction. He understood that the amount was to meet expenditure up to March 31 next, and surely the amount necessary depended upon the arrangements? Before voting this money, he would like some assurance from the Minister that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the question.

said he hoped time would be found for the House to express its opinion upon the report. He pointed, out that there were some very important Bills which Government wanted to get through, such as the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. As regarded cost, he did not think more than £4,000 would be required.

suggested that the Minister withdraw his reduction, as it was prejudging the decision of the House in regard to the “Hansard” of the future. They were providing for (the future, and the House might come to some arrangement which would exceed the sum of £4,000.

appealed to the Minister to allow the vote to stand. If the committee reduced the vote, it would be prejudicing the whole question.

said he would be glad if the Minister would withdraw his amendment. He trusted the Government not to spend more than was absolutely necessary, but he did not want to see it hampered in this particular matter.

said it was with no idea of prejudicing the question, which he hoped would be considered fully by the House, that he moved the reduction, and if hon. members were of opinion that his amendment would have the effect of prejudicing the committee’s report, he would withdraw it. (Cries of No, no.”)

The amendment was agreed to.

asked whether there was a loss in regard to the Parliamentary restaurant; and, if so, how much it was?

replied that there was a loss; but he could not say what it was.

said that it was not right that the general ratepayer had to pay because members of Parliament wanted a restaurant of their own. Let the catering department be made to pay for itself. (Cheers.)

said he hoped the Minister of Railways would have a statement prepared by his department, so that when they came to discuss his vote they would know whether there was a profit or a loss on this place. He held very strongly that this department should pay for itself, and not be a loss, to the taxpayer.

Well. I am in hope of getting my vote through to-night.

Blessed are those who expect nothing. (Laughter).

Well, it is a very modest request. (More laughter). I hope to get through this evening, and in that case I want to be able to have a statement prepared in time. He quite agreed that if the House wanted to be well looked after it must not do it at the expense of the taxpayer.

Make a levy upon all members of Parliament, and so make up the deficiency. Then it will be soon seen who are patriots.

Tax according to the length of speeches. (Laughter).

The vote, as reduced, was agreed to.

asked the Minister of Education if an opportunity would be given in the House to discuss the report which had been placed on the table that day in regard to education?

said that the Government recognised this as one of the most important committees appointed during the session. They had been able, after prolonged deliberations, to submit a report. If the House had consented to the report being read, they would have had the report properly before them. He was afraid that, by the rules of the House, it could not be published now until that report had been printed, although he noticed that in the evening paper there was a fairly comprehensive review of parts of the report. Well, that was rather inconvenient, and certainly very inconvenient over against those newspapers which had not succeeded in getting hold of the report in that way. That, however, could not be helped. The Government would give an ample opportunity for discussion of this report.

asked if the Minister could give the House any information in reference to the National University, as to which he spoke some months ago at Camp’s Bay? He would like to know where that globular sum of £500,000, which the Minister then mentioned, had gone to.

said that perhaps a sufficient reply to the hon. member would be to say that if this session, the first of the Union Parliament, succeeded in getting a solution of the elementary education question, which had been prominently before the country at the general election, and since then before that House, they would have done fairly well, and that they could deal with the question of a National University next session. (Hear, hear). As regarded the hon. member’s anxiety about the £500,000, nothing had been received, and therefore nothing had been spent. It was hoped, before the House was asked to deal comprehensively with this question, that a decision would become to, and all information would then be published.

said that since the picnic to Camp’s Bay they had been waiting until the Minister adumbrated his scheme. He was delighted to hear that the Minister had found a solution to the elementary education question, but he Would point out that, by the Act of Union, this was a matter which was left to the Provinces. Mr. Merriman went on to speak of the desirability of co-ordinating the Colleges in some sort of way so that their work did not overlap. Proceeding, he said he saw that there was an interesting correspondence going on in the papers with reference to higher education and the Matriculation examinations. Well, he confessed it filled him with shame for South Africa, that such a discussion should be possible. (Hear, hear.) Apparently there had been a great lack of thoroughness, and now they wanted to have the examination lowered. He could not conceive of a more detrimental thing, and he was surprised to see the names appended to some of these letters, and the correspondence that went on in the papers about it. It was no credit to this country. He did not know what the value of the degrees was going to be if the examiners were going to be pulled up by the newspapers and made, not to bring the pupils up to their standard, but to bring their standard down to the pupils. (Hear, hear.) He could not conceive anything worse for this country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Merriman also paid a tribute to the work done by the South African School of Mines and Technology.

said that as regarded the National University, everybody agreed that a National University in the real sense of the word would be nothing but a blessing, almost a necessity, for South Africa, but he had never heard of a University arising under such circumstances as were apparently contemplated in connection with this institution which they hoped was about to take birth in this country. He understood by a University—and all the great Universities bore out that idea— a body or corporation existing in the interests of learning and nothing else—(hear, hear)—and the more it was controlled by Governments and by the considerations that controlled Governments, the less it existed in the interests of learning for itself. (Hear, hear.) Here they had got a Government, a rich Government, and their riches were supplemented by a magnificent bequest, and what was the result? As soon as these forces came into the matter, what did they find? Local claims had been urged in every direction, the Government were being pulled in half-a-dozen different directions, they were told that they must not injure this and injure that, and that they were going to harm this and that. He saw nothing that was likely to lead to good out of the whole of this controversy which had arisen out of the proposals for a University. Even the results of the examinations were made an occasion to pull at the Government in order to satisfy the aspirations of parents who desired their sons and daughters to get certificates, which apparently nature had not yet qualified them to get. What could they hope from the foundation of a University which was going to be exposed to considerations of that kind? If this University was to be established by the State and to be the National University of South Africa, and to be of service to South Africa, it must be established in such a way that it would not be open to the influence of every man; but must be established under some body which was independent of the ordinary influences which could be brought to bear on a Government. Unless they could do that; unless they could establish some body which would work in the interests of learning and nothing else, then it would be better to postpone this University until, they could bring that about Unless that could be done it would do South Africa nothing like the service it ought. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to say one word regarding the matriculation examination. If there was one profession not represented in the House, it was the teachers, and this examination had been spoken of as if the parents and teachers were grumbling, and wanted the standard of the examination to be lower. He was surprised to hear the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) take up that attitude, and he thought it best to say something in defence of teachers and parents and pupils. They did not want to see the standard lower, but what happened at the last examination was that the papers were set on totally different lines. The history paper, to instance one, was one that should not have been set, unless the teachers had been warned of it at least a year beforehand, so as to prepare the pupils for it. It was customary to set the paper on facts of history, but this year it was set entirely on theory. Therefore, it was not a fair paper to set. The pupils might have been excellently taught on the ordinary lines of history, but if they set them a paper on a different line from that taught in the schools, they were sure to fail.

said his complaint with regard to this correspondence that had been going on was not that people were complaining about the way the papers were set but that when this happened they went to the Government and asked them to interfere with those papers.

said he did not want to make any reflection on the teachers of this country, but what the hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins) had said was in itself a very considerable reflection on the way history was taught. If it had been customary to teach only the facts of history, then he would say that the system was wrong, and the sooner it was done away with the better. (Hear, hear.) Regarding the statements made by the right hon. member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Fordsburg in regard to higher education in this country, he would say deliberately, and with the idea that hon. members would perhaps be awakened to the difficulties involved in the system of education, that the standard of higher education in this country was disgracefully low, and lower than that of any other country, and if any examiner in this country was to set for the B.A. examination, for instance, the standard of any European country, then it would be very seldom that any student in this country would go through. He said that deliberately, not with any idea of insulting the teachers of this country, but to try and awaken the hon. members to the seriousness of the matter. What happened now was that, owing to the way in which these subjects were prescribed, the examiner had deliberately to set himself a lower standard than he should. The fault seemed to lie in two things—first, the University itself, which in drawing up the syllabus had gone far too much on the system of prescribing the range of knowledge. The University should recognise that the only way of getting real knowledge into the student’s head was to require him to have special knowledge of one branch. That specialisation had been universally adopted in European countries, and it was when they taught subjects from the specialisation point of view that they got the student to realise how little he knew of that subject, and it was only when they got a man to realise his lack of knowledge that they could teach him anything. The fault of this country was that the student began to think he knew a great deal when he knew very little about the subject he was supposed to know particularly well. Secondly, he believed the difficulty arose in the tremendous dissipation of the forces of higher education in this country, and in the fact that they were enormously over-staffed in comparison with the number of students they had to educate. One recognised the disadvantages of the wide distribution of students over the country and other factors, and it was for that reason that one was sorry to see that the Minister for Higher Education had gone back, more or less, on what the announced at the beginning of this session, and had refused, or, at any rate, avoided, giving the House any declaration of policy in regard to the establishment of a South African National University.

How can he?

said he had heard rumours that there was some idea that the University was going to be a University devoted to research. Well, if that was the case, all She could say was, it was simply putting on their gilded roof before they put in their foundations. There was no single student who had gone through the higher education of this country who had special knowledge with which he could enter upon any special research, and while that was so, the idea of founding a South African University simply for research was simply a compromise to avoid the greater difficulties of research, and was going to do a great deal of harm to education in this country. He hoped hon. members would not take his remarks amiss. He would say deliberately that he would rather not see the best brains of this country going to European Universities for their higher education, but he did not believe they were going to keep them here so long as they were going to disregard the whole experience of Europe on higher education, and it was only when they had their higher education founded on the models that had been found best in Europe that they would keep their students. (Hear, hear.)

said that regarding the Matriculation Examination in 1906, the percentage of passes was 75 per cent., in 1909 77 per cent., in 1910 the percentage dropped to 59.6 per cent. He had taken some trouble on this matter, and the advice that had been received from 23 of the principal schools in Cape Colony came down broadly to this, that the pupils were not less well prepared than last year. Usually the teachers were able to forecast what pupils they thought would pass, but this year they were completely out. In fact, in certain cases a pupil received less marks in the same subject than in the previous year after a year’s more coaching. Representations had been made to the University, but the authorities shielded themselves behind a clause which stated that the marking of the examiners would be final. Pupils who had been expected to do very well had been mercilessly ploughed, and that not for any educational inferiority. What parents asked was that steps should be taken so that in future no similar mistake should be made. The University Council should lay down a standard of education; if they wished that standard to be high they should say so, and notify the schools.

said he wished to endorse the position taken up by Dr. Watkins. His opinion had always been that the percentage necessary to secure a pass was too low. What he objected to was that the University should all of a sudden spring a higher standard of education on the country. He had studied the history paper himself, and it was a fair paper for a certain class of educated people, but if he compared it with former papers he would say that the standard had been suddenly raised. The University, in his opinion, should give warning of these changes. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to a question that he had put to the Minister five months ago, viz., whether he was intending to do anything for the higher education of the natives who were going to America and other countries in order to get the education that was denied them here? If these students were deemed fit for higher education, it was better that they should receive it here than in America. This was not a new question, and he would like to know from the Minister if anything was being done.

said he did not think he was divulging any confidence when he said that one of the would-be donors of large sums of money wrote to him to say how difficult it was to give away large sums under the present circumstances. There was some reason to regret that the Minister had not absolutely been able to do anything in regard to this National University, because they would never be able to do anything by a policy of drift. They were in the position of waiting for something to turn up. It was absolutely necessary for the Minister to do some thing, and he hoped that during the recess some well-qualified committee would be appointed for the purpose of deciding how this National University should be founded. It was necessary to take into consideration existing interests, and see how far they could be made use of without spoiling their present work. If they ever could hope that the students of this country would have an honoured place in the world of knowledge, they would have to provide a proper training establishment. (Hear, hear.) If they did not go on with the scheme they might lose the munificent sum which at present was at their disposal. Therefore, he hoped that the Minister would tell them that during the recess he would set some competent body to work to frame some scheme of a practical nature. As to the Matriculation Examination, he did not think it surprising that there had been so many failures. He understood that a higher system of marking than had prevailed in the past had been asked for; and anyone who knew anything of higher education in other countries knew that the standard of marks required to pass that examination was very much lower than in other countries; and the result was that they had been passing their young students—younger than, in the ordinary course, would have been able to pass in other countries. They had been aiming at passing their Matriculation students coo young. If there was a stricter standard of examination, he, for one, welcomed it, because it was all to the good of the students. Mr. Merriman had referred to the excellent work done at the College of Technology at Johannesburg; he agreed with him, because it was fitting men out for life. In Germany it was a common practice for highly qualified men to get a post of junior professor, as at Charlottenburg, because such men were invariably demanded for important posts in industrial works. He thought it would be a good thing if they had the same system in this country.

said that he wanted to say a few words to counteract what Mr. Merriman and Mr. Duncan had said against their colleges in South Africa. It was not correct to say that the standard fell below that of European institutions. He thought that they had done splendid work in South Africa, but where Mr. Merriman had gone wrong was that he forgot to say that more than half the work done by them was not higher education at all, but primary education. (Hear, hear.) The matriculation standard as a pass to the University was adopted nowhere in Europe, except in Britain. The University here had examinations such as the former Elementary examination and the present School Higher and Matriculation examinations, which were nothing but school examinations; and the latter was equivalent to the seventh standard at a European secondary school. The fault did not be with their colleges, but with the standard demanded for entrance to the Universities in Britain. On the Continent the examination to pass into a University was the B.A. examination; the South African B.A., however, was superior to that of Europe. As to what Mr. Merriman had said about the number of colleges and the overlapping of their work, he did not agree with the right hon. member that the number should be reduced, seeing the kind of work they carried out in finishing a course of secondary education. They had about seven or eight of these colleges in South Africa. B.A. and M.A. work was certainly done, but not to a large extent; Very little of such work was done, considering the population of South Africa. He would rather see the work of these colleges extended as much as possible, so that the students would be prepared for examinations equivalent to the entrance examinations for the European Universities. If young men left South Africa after passing the Matriculation examination merely, they would not get that benefit from a University education in Europe which they would get if they passed the B.A. examination here. If they established a University here which was not one in the best and right sense of the word, he would deeply regret it; and without the aid of the existing Colleges such an institution Would lead but a poor sort of existence, though hon. members were now throwing mud at the Colleges in order to obtain a full-blown University.

said that he hoped such a thing would not occur again as had happened at the recent Matriculation examination. The percentage of failures had been much higher than in other years, and it was certainly not due to insufficient training. The marking must have been much more rigorous. He agreed with Mr. Long that there should be more specialisation, and less “Jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none.” The department was to blame—not the teachers or the pupils.

thanked Dr. Watkins for having stood up for the teachers. The standard of the examination in question had, he said, not been raised at all; but the marking had been more severe. The standard, as far as the subjects were concerned, had remained the same; and so the teachers were not to blame at all for the very large number of failures. They had swooped down like eagles on the poor ewe-lambs, who had been torn to pieces. (Laughter.) It was surely impossible that the standard of the teaching of all the teachers of South Africa in that one year had, all of a sudden, been lowered. It was unreasonable to ask Matriculation students questions which were above the Matriculation standard, and that without notice, although the South African Teachers’ Association had sent in a written protest, that had not been answered by any manner of means.

said that it was high time that some attention was paid to this subject, in view of what had been said by experts on the late Matriculation examination. He admitted that he knew nothing whatever about higher education, but, in common with a great many others who had not had the advantage of it, he would like to give others a chance. (Hear, hear.) They had made many efforts in the Transvaal to interest the people, and to get a start. They had raised £110,000 once for education in Johannesburg.

Ordinary education?

Yes. Ordinary education, when it was not available from the State. Proceeding, he said they had helped schools up there by public subscription pretty well. (Hear, hear.) There had been a fund of £30,000 for a public school. He was a trustee of that money, which still remained. They could not use it. Then there was a fund of £20,000 raised twelve years ago for a bacteriological laboratory, but they could not get the co-operation of the Government and the Town Council. That was the encouragement that had been given. Hon. members had too many opportunities of hearing how little was done by the mining people, and by those who had money, but here were some of the offers and the attempts made to interest the people, and to get something done, to which, however, there had been no response at all. It had been his privilege to discuss with the late Alfred Beit, his friend and chief then, the gift of Frankenwald, on which he had spent £80,000. He gave it to the country, to the Transvaal—(hear, hear)—and no use had been made of it He was ready then to give a very much larger sum, but political considerations intervened, other considerations intervened, which were a perfect, absolute curse to South Africa. There were little divisions which never ought to be between them, considerations which never ought to enter into this question at all. The late Alfred Beit left £200,000 for this University, which was unused. It lapsed in consequence, and reverted to his heir, who made it up to a quarter of a million, and offered it to the Union. All! considerations were waived. Sir Julius Wernher also gave £250,000. That meant that half a million pounds sterling was waiting, and nothing was done for the benefit of the country. Fancy! they had half a million waiting for them to settle their miserable little squabbles, and to attend to the one thing which was essential to the welfare of South Africa. There were difficulties, but surely they could find some way of doing away with them. Little local jealousies and difficulties ought to be brushed aside. There was the money; there was the necessity; they talked about this young nation, but nothing was done. He appealed to the Minister of Education to take his courage in both hands, give the word, and make a start. (Cheers.)

advocated bursaries for young South Africans to study art. They might, for instance, give four competitive bursaries of £250 a year each for three years for music, painting, sculpture, and architecture, respectively. The winners would then be able to study in England and France. South Africa was a beautiful country, whose smiling valleys and rugged mountains would inspire artists. It was very likely that South Africa contained a number of talented people, who were unable to develop their gifts, which, if given an opportunity, might give the world another Rembrandt, a Rubens, and a Van Dyck.

supported the hon. member for Liesbeek, but could not agree that the standard of South African examinations was a poor one. In connection with mining they were well to the fore, and owing to the variety of mines found in South Africa it offered more facilities for that class of study than any other country in the world. There were ether branches of learning, however, in which a student could do better in Europe. Quoting anatomy as an example the hon. member deprecated hasty action. He advocated a more liberal subsidy for the Victoria College, because, although more students frequented it than any other college, its subsidy was the smallest of all

said if they were to have equal distribution of grants to the Colleges, the Grey College would suffer. The professional education given at the South African College was necessarily expensive. Although that College could not give the highest form of professional education, it would ill become them to undervalue it. Proceeding’, he asked if the whole question of the training of teachers was a matter of higher education? The line must be drawn at some fixed point, land he hoped that Mr. Malan would take the whole of the training of teachers under his control. He (Mr. Fremantle) had never understood the reference in the Act of Union as to native education land its control. It was high time that Parliament dealt with the most important matter of native education. At any rate, he trusted that Mr. Malan would take the training of native teachers under his control. Mr. Fremantle went on to defend the position of the examiners in connection with the Matriculation examinations. He pointed out that, as compared with 1909, the only change made in the examiners in history for 1910 was the appointment of Professor Fouchee, who was a son of the soil, and who, he supposed, was responsible for the change that had been made in the standard.

No one mentioned names.

No but this has happened at a time when the only change that has been made in the examiners is to appoint a son of the soil.

The objections came from sons of the soil.

I know; but, unfortunately, it came from sons of the soil, such as the hon. member opposite, who did not know what he was objecting to.

As a matter of fact, I did not make any objections.

I do not want to pick a quarrel with so formidable an opponent as my hon. friend; but I understood him to say that, considering the weight of the criticisms which had been made, they ought to be very careful.

I did not even say that.

Well, the hon. member said something remarkably like that. Proceeding, Mr. Fremantle said that a great advance had been made in this country in reference to this question of higher education. He thought that when the hon. member for Pretoria East talked about small local jealousies, he was entirely mistaken. It was not in that spirit that it would be carried out. It was only by recognising to the full the immense utility of the engines for usefulness now at work. He would point out that research Universities had failed in every other country, and therefore he trusted his hon. friend the Minister was not going to lead them into that blind alley. But he did think some organisation was wanted. It was two years since the Cape House passed the resolution that the matter of University reform demanded the earnest and immediate attention of the Government. He thought hon. members from the North, who regarded the Cape University as a Provincial University, should sympathise with them, because they had asked for reform. He hoped the Minister would take the matter up, and if he was not going to produce some creation of his own mind that he would, at any rate, go on with the old institution.

said it had been alleged that an attack had been made on one or other of the examiners. He had not been a party to it, and wished to dissociate himself from the idea of attacking any of the examiners. It was recognised that what had happened was not due to the action of any person, but to the system.

said that the discussion, which-had been an interesting one, had gone over the whole range of education down to the question of a National University. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had thrown out a strong insinuation that elementary education was altogether outside the field of the Union Parliament. Well, he could only say that article 137 of the Constitution, was not, and that this House had appointed a Select Committee which had been into this question, so that he did not think that dictum was a very serious one. On the matter of the Matriculation examination he only wanted to say two things. The one was that the Government did not intend to interfere in any way. It was somewhat difficult to control the marking of papers by examiners, and get uniformity from year to year. He understood that a committee had been appointed by the University for the purpose of investigating the matter, and it was hoped that something practical would come out of it. Then there were the two questions raised by Mr. Fremantle, and one was the training of teachers. Well, the Government had not yet taken over any of the institutions for the training of teachers, and it was not so much because it was not clearly laid down what was higher education, and whether the training of teachers would fall under higher education, but because they had not yet a uniform system of training in the Union. It was a difficult matter to dissociate their training schools and schools themselves until they had a general system. This committee had had to deal with that aspect of the question, and he was waiting for its report, and also for the report of the four Directors of Education, to whom the question of advising as to a general curriculum for training schools had been given, before deciding the question of training schools. Then there was the further difficulty, and that was that in the Cape, for instance, they had the system of pupil teachers. They were really part of the ordinary school life, end for the Central Department to take over that branch of the training of teachers and not to take over the schools themselves seemed to him not practical. Also there was the question of native education, whether it fell under the Department of Education or of the Native Affairs Department. In the post it had fallen under the Education Department. Here in the Cape they had a Native Affairs Department, though they never dealt with education, and to alter it now would be to duplicate the system and work. They had now four departments, one in each of the Provinces, and the only connecting link was the Central Department, but when they had no connecting link except this department, a great deal of work which did not appear in the report or on the Estimates was done in that department. If they were to put the matter of native education under the Minister of Native Affairs, they would only be creating a new Education Department in South Africa. As regarded the inequalities to which Mr. Merriman had referred, he did not deny, these inequalities. In the report of the Secretary for Education, they were very clearly set forth, but they did not create them, they inherited them. They could not level up to the standard of expense of a school that cost £176 per student, of course. It would be a sorry thing for the Government to tell them that all the benefit they would derive from Union would be their abolition, It seemed to him, however, that these inequalities must not continue indefinitely, and he had laid down his policy that they should not create such inequalities, and that in the future there should be more uniformity.

referred to the appointment of the Under Secretary for Education at £850 a year. He said that he had not got anything personal against him, having always been treated with courtesy by him, but he understood that the officer in question had been appointed from outside the Service. He held that that appointment was a grave injustice, and an extravagant one— unjust because a man in the Service might as well have been appointed, and extravagant because they were told that so many officers in the Service were redundant. Take the Secretary of the Education Department in the Cape, who had served close on twenty years in that office, and got £600 a year.

Is he any good?

He must be, seeing that he has been in that position for twenty years, and is at present Acting Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape, and has acted in that capacity on several occasions. Yet here a man is taken on from outside, and given £250 a year more.

drew attention to p. 166 of T. Maskew Miller’s “ Short History of South Africa,” where the following reference was made to Natal: “In consequence of this large influx (of natives) into Natal, it ceased to offer a desirable residence to European settlers.” (Laughter.) The book also said: “Natal was never an English colony in the sense of being a place in which a large number of English people could make a living.” (Laughter, and an HON. MEMBER: “Quite right.”) “There are,” the book proceeded, “some farmers, indeed, but their number is so small that they could do very little to develop the country.”

They have got one in the Ministry; it’s all right.

said the book was written by Mr. Thomas Young. This misleading information ought not to be placed in the hands of our young people—(cheers)—and he hoped the Minister would use his influence to get the people responsible for circulating this nonsense to withdraw it. (Cheers.)

said the book was most mischievous, and ought not to be used in any school in South Africa.

said that when the Union Education Department was created, attempts were made to find someone from one of the existing departments to fill the post of Under Secretary. The names of several persons were mentioned, but they were not considered suitable. Mr. Jagger had mentioned the name of one, but he (Mr. Malan) did nor, know that it would have been any economy to appoint that particular gentleman. As to the reasons which led him to appoint Mr. Hofmeyr, that gentleman had been a teacher at an important school for a long time, and he also had had experience in administration, and this experience he thought would stand Mr. Hofmeyr in good stead. Until such time as the whole of the educational work was put under the Union Government, it was not his (Mr. Malan’s) intention to appoint a Director of Education. With regard to the point raised by Mr. Watt, his (Mr. Malan’s) attention had been drawn to this particular publication, and he had drawn the attention, of the publishers to the matter. However, the publishers and the author defended the book. He (Mr. Malan) could not say any more. As for the department’s taking any action, the matter was a commercial one, and the department might be landed in an action in the Courts.

said he had to perform rather a disagreeable task. He did not like to do it, but he felt compelled to do it. The task he had to perform was to move a reduction in the salary of the Under Secretary of Education by £250. His hon. friend (Mr. Malan) said that one of the names mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) would have been a suitable officer to fill the post of Under Secretary of Education.

Oh, no.

Well, does my hon. friend say that he is an unsuitable officer to fill the position, although he knows that he is Acting Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape Province?

That is no criterion.

asked if his hon. friend maintained that the principle that should be adopted by the House was, notwithstanding that a large number of Civil Servants in the four Provinces, who had been retrenched owing to the depression through which they had gone, that they must go outside of the Service to fill up important posts when they fell vacant? This was not the only appointment of this (character that had been made, and he said it was the duty of members on both sides of the House to protest in the strongest manner possible against the principle when lucrative appointments were to be given away, that they should not be given to the members of the permanent Service or members of the Service who had been retrenched, unless the Minister could explain to the committee that amongst the whole list of these officials it was utterly impossible to get a man suitable to fill the post. After all, the salary was a very large one (£800), whereas the Acting-Superintendent-Genera! of Education in the Cape, after twenty years, was drawing a salary of £650, under the Provincial administration. His hon. friend (Mr. Malan) had not given him a satisfactory explanation that there was not within the four Services a suitable officer to fill the post, and if they did not utter the strongest protest possible against departures of this sort, they were going to have seething discontent in the Civil Service. He wished to add that he had no resentment whatever against the officer who filled the post.

said it was difficult for him to believe that the Government could not get a suitable man in the Service. He was not pleading for the gentleman who was Secretary of the Education Department in the Cape. He only mentioned him, as he had happened to be the Uuder Secretary of the Education Department in the Cape for twenty years. He seemed to be looked over, and a man entirely outside the Service was brought in. He considered that that was a gross injustice.

said that the hon. members for Fort Beaufort and Cape Town (Central) did not seem to recognise that the gentleman who was at the bead of the department must have special qualifications. It was an educational appointment, and they could not take an ordinary Civil Servant, who was a clerk, and put him into the position. He had not said that the particular individual mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was unsuitable for the post. All he did say was that, from the point of view of economy, such an appointment could not be justified. He said that, looking at the qualifications required for this post, he could not find a suitable man in the Service.

said that the Minister had not convinced him that he could not have found a suitable man in the Service. He could give him the name, privately, of a most perfectly qualified man, with greater qualifications than Mr. Hofmeyr—(hear, hear)— a man who was in the Service of this country, and who was drawing half the salary of Mr. Hofmeyr. It was most unsatisfactory. He thought it was a wrong principle that they should go outside the Civil Service on occasions like this when they had something in the way of a higher appointment to offer. He could mention two or three men who could fill the post.

said he must congratulate the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) on his knowledge of three or four men. That was knowledge which he (Mr. Fremantle) did not share at all. Personally, he did not know one.

If I tell you the name of the man I am thinking of you would know him at once.

I do not think I would agree with the hon. gentleman’s estimate. I think it is a typical appointment to fill up. I don’t think it should be mentioned in this connection. Replying to Hr. Jagger, Mr. Fremantle said that this man was the Registrar of the Victoria College, and therefore had the best possible experience. They wanted a business man, and a man who had some knowledge of Colleges.

said he understood the Minister had appointed a gentleman who was a teacher, and also a gentleman who had had a College education; but the point was also raised whether he was an attorney.

said that if the hon. member felt interested, he might say that the record of Mr. Hofmeyr was that for some’ years he was the head of an independent school at Johannesburg, and afterwards became an attorney at Johannesburg. Subsequent to the war, he was appointed Registrar to the Victoria College, which position he held at the time of this appointment.

The amendment was negatived.

said he was not satisfied with the reply of the Hon. Minister. He had asked whether the inter-State Native College was going to be set up.

said the hon. member must confine himself to the three votes remaining.

stated that Lovedale and one or two other places would be perfectly willing to educate the natives as he suggested, if there was a grant, but considering that they received so much money from the natives, he thought that the expenditure of a few hundred pounds would not come amiss.

said he wanted information regarding the Agricultural College at Pretoria?

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to have the Cape Matriculation for the entrance examination to Agricultural Colleges? He thought that was wrong. They could have the same standard of education, but in the subjects, such as chemistry, botany, etc., he thought they would get much more work from their experts also if the experimental work was done upon a different system. If certain experiments were to be carried out, they should be carried out on ground leased from a farmer, where the processes could be studied by people in the district.

said there was a Mr. Johnson, who was stationed at Humansdorp, who did not only make experiments at that place, but went all over the district—and from Uniondale right on to Port Elizabeth and Alexandria, which seemed to be too much for one man. Mr. Johnson experimented with manure, and he (Mr. Rademeyer) thought that the gentleman in question should be encouraged, so as to enable him to devote his attention also to cattle breeding

asked what the policy of the Minister was with regard to agricultural education? It was necessary that more research work should be carried out at a properly equipped and staffed institution. All honour to the wealthy men who were spending their money in developing the agricultural resources of the country, but it must not be forgotten that the mass of the country people had to make their money out of the land before they could spend it. There was a tendency to teach rather an extravagant form of farming. The present method of teaching was more suitable for the sons of rich men.

said he wished to point out that the Agricultural College at Grootfontein cost £21,660 per annum. He considered that that amount was extravagant. He would like to know how many students were educated at that cost. As regarded the Cedara College, in Natal, the cost was £11,451 per annum, which worked out at about £300 per head per annum. The students paid £40 per annum, so that meant that £260 per student per annum was paid out of general revenue. He also commented upon the cost of the Potchefstroom College. Mr. Fawcus also asked for further details in reference to the poultry experts at the Potchefstroom College and the Bestersput Experimental Station and Donkey Stud Farm.

spoke of the popularity attained by the Cedara Agricultural School, and said that his hon. friend had made the mistake of tacking everything on to this vote, whether it really belonged to the College or not. For instance, the Director of Agriculture was included under this vote.

said that the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus), in estimating the cost per student of the Cedara School, had only taken into account the expenditure, and had omitted altogether the estimated revenue, £5,700.

replying to Sir P. Fitzpatrick, said the Government intended) going on with this Agricultural College at Pretoria, but they had not taken transfer, because they had not agreed upon the water rights. However, he hoped this difficulty would be got over, and that they would soon be able to take transfer. As regarded Mr. Heatlie’s proposal, the hon. member must distinguish between experimental stations and the instruction of farmers in a district. For the latter they wanted men to go about and instruct the farmers, but to carry on special experiments that must be done practically on Government property.

said that he wanted a more definite assurance from the Minister with regard to the National Agricultural College at Pretoria. It would be an expensive business, but he thought it would be worth the money. The Minister of the Interior had said that provision would be made in the Loan Bill.

said that the report had been expected for weeks and weeks, and until they had that he could not go into the matter. It was a suggestion of his own that they should have a Government expert on the spot and the Municipal Engineer, and that they should try to fix up.

said £121,900 seemed) a large sum to spend on forestry, but he would like to bring to the notice of the House the system of encouraging tree-planting among farmers as practised in Natal. Prizes were given for five acre blocks, and he would like to know what it cost the Government to grow trees.

regretted the absence of a grant for a forest station in his constituency. He pointed out that it contained a forest reserve of 100,000 acres, only 28,000 of which had been covered with trees. Yet not a penny had been granted for the afforestation of the remaining 72,000 acres. He protested strongly against the neglect of his constituency. Continuing, the hon. member referred to the plight of the woodcutters, who were too poor to have their children educated owing to the fact that no facilities existed in the immediate neighbourhood. The Chief Forester should be instructed to employ poor whites in afforestation. The sale of wood should be properly regulated. At present a large sum was realised, but the poor woodcutters received a very small proportion of the total. Generally speaking, the conditions under which they worked should be improved.

in reply to Mr. Orr, said that as to the railway sleeper plantation vote, £25,000, the department did this work for the Railway Department, and charged them with it.

A verbal amendment was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.