as Chairman, brought up the report of the Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours for the year endingthe 31st March, 1912, reporting the Estimates without amendment.

moved that the report to now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The report was then adopted.

appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours and Mr. Van Heerdien a committee to draft a Bill, in accordance with the Estimates of Expenditure, as adopted.

Chief Inspector of Grain, year ended list December, 1910.

as Chairman, brought up the seventh report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and moved that the report and evidence, together with the third to sixth reports, be printed, and considered on Monday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

as Chairman, brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities: they recommended to the widow of the late Constable Burton, Transvaal Police, the award of a pension of £12 per annum; the award to Sarah Helm, late teacher, of a pension of £1 per month; the award to G. E. Mandy, postmaster, of a gratuity of £50; that on a refund by O. W. Fremantle of the amount paid to him by way of gratuity he be awarded the pension to which he would have been entitled under the Civil Service Act; that breaches be condoned in the service of A. A. Dalziel, teacher; Annie Clinton, teacher; Lydia J. Davidson, teacher; M. Garrett, Department of Justice; W. H. Logeman, teacher; and J. Torrance, teacher; and that the attention of the Government be directed to the case of J. M. Corderoy with a view to his temporary employment.

They were unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions to entertained: I. Bisseux, J. Fourie, T. H. Morgan, E. A, L. Ely, H. P. Barnett-Clarke, H. Hill, W. H. Harrison, C. Wiltshire, G. Cameron-Smith, J. Macdonell, J. M. Bowker, J. J. de C. Wialsh, N. Mansveldt, K. A. H. Houghton, T. Sampson, W. W. Rodger, Mabel K. Ottley, C. H. B. van der Riet, Christina Strachan, Ida M. Meredith, M. A. Bale, J. A. E. Markus, Clara Weiss, W. R. D; Fynn, and R. E. Brounger.

With reference to the schedule of officers and employees in the Railway Department who are on the Fixed Establishment, and whom it is proposed to retire, owing to the amalgamation of railways and consequent reorganisation of staff, the committee were not prepared to make any recommendation thereon, as they consider the matter is one which should be dealt with by the Executive Government.

With reference to the papers referred to your committee in regard to the pension awarded to Sir Somerset French, K.C.M.G., late Agent-General for the Cape of Good Hope, they were unable to make any recommendation thereon.

With reference to the petition from J. R. Dodd, the committee made no recommendation thereon, as they understand that the services of petitioner are to be retained by the Railway Department.

It was decided that the report be considered in committee to-morrow.

brought up the report of the committee appointed to draft an Appropriation Bill, submitting a Bill.

The Bill was read a first time, and the second reading set down far to-marrow.

With reference to the question raised yesterday afternoon by the honourable member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), when he pointed out that the minutes of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Public Education are not in accordance with What actually took place before the committee, i.e., that in the Statement submitted by the Honourable the Minister of Justice as printed on page 38 of the proceedings of the committee his name does not appear, whereas it was used by the Minister when he made the same. I have caused the original minutes to be consulted, and find that the honourable member for Uitenhage is correct. The clerk who was in attendance on the committee states that he made the alteration as he regarded it as a necessary alteration consequent upon the vote which was subsequently taken when the honourable member voted for the majority report. The committee clerk fell into his error for the further reason that he considered the proceedings irregular, and his sole desire was to secure consistency—as it often happens that minor alterations have to be made in minutes to rectify irregularities and inconsistencies. It is to be regretted that the committee clerk did not refer the matter to the Clerk of the House before he made the alteration, as it undoubtedly must he regarded as a serious dereliction of duty to make alterations in the minutes of a Select Committee on material points without the permission of the Chairman, and steps have been taken which will in the future render a recurrence in this direction impossible. At the same time I aim bound to point out that the work of the committee and of the House is being carried on at an unprecedented rate and under very severe pressure and strain, and that the clerk in question committed a lapse in perfect good faith. My attention has also been called to a discrepancy between the English and Dutch versions of the last day’s proceedings in that the fact that the honourable member for Uitenhage had intimated his intention of submitting a minority report does not appear in the Dutch version. This discrepancy is due to the fact that, owing to the great speed with which this report had to be put through the press, the rectification of an alteration in the English version was through inadvertence not made in the Dutch version.

said he quite understood the difficulty in which the clerk had been placed, and he was glad that was appreciated (Hear, hear.)

in the course of a statement, said that, in accordance with the promise he had made the previous day as to the course of business, he wished to announce that the Government intended to proceed with all the financial measures which had been introduced, and to go on with the subject matters of items Nos. I to 12, inclusive, on that day’s order paper, as well as Nos. 14, 16, 17, and 18. With reference to item No. 19, his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, would make a statement later. Having made the same announcement in Dutch, the right hon. gentleman added that most of the work had already been done; but he must take the liberty of calling on both sides of the House to put through the business which was before them as quickly as possible. (Hear, hear.)

asked when General Smuts would make his statement?

Later.

Later to-day?

shook his head.

Estimates of Capital and Betterment Works (1910-1912); provisional agreement, for the construction and working of railway from the terminus of the Selati line to Messina; agreement between the Government of the Transvaal, the Railway Board of the late Central South African Railways, and the Messina (Transvaal) Development Company, Limited, relative to the construction and working of a line of railway to Messina; report by the Railway Commissioners on Tzaneen to Messina railway.

moved that the House at its rising to-day, adjourn until Saturday morning at 10 o’clock. Government business to have precedence.

seconded.

asked whether the idea was to sit on Saturday evening or not?

replied that if it was not necessary they would not sit on Saturday evening, but if they did not finish their work on Saturday afternoon they might sit in the evening.(“Oh.”)

Are we going to sit on Saturday evening or not?

I have stated that if its not necessary we shall not sit on Saturday evening; but suppose we can get our work finished on Saturday evening, why should we adjourn and sit on Monday again? (Ministerial cheers.)

The House will go on without adjourning?

Yes.

The motion was agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Natal Poll Tax Act Amendment Bill, said that the House would remember that his right hon. friend the Prime Minister had made an announcement some time ago that it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation for the purpose of repealing the poll tax laws of Natal; but, at the same time, he intimated that it might be necessary to bring in legislation to restore the loss of revenue which the Union would suffer by the removal of that poll tax. Well, as hon. members were aware, Natal was the only Province in the Union which at present levied a poll tax upon all its people. The poll tax, as he had said on a previous occasion, was an undesirable form of taxation, and the undesirability was felt to be greater in Natal, because they were the only people in the Union who paid that tax. Under the Natal law, the tax fell to be payable on January this year. Hon. members would see, from the provisions of this short Bill, that he proposed to suspend payment of this tax until such date as may be approved by the Governor-General-in-Council. Representations had been made to him, and he was prepared in committee to amend the clause somewhat, so that the suspension should remain in operation until such date as Parliament should by resolution declare. (Hear, hear.)

asked whether it was clear that this Bill would apply to all alike? In the notice which appeared for the first reading of the Bill, it was stated that it was proposed to relieve white persons from payment of the poll tax.

The first Bill was withdrawn.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage to-morrow.

moved a resolution in terms of the committee’s recommendation.

said that he would like to call attention to certain case in which the committee had failed to make any recommendation to the House. There had been three refusals, to which he wished to refer. First of all, there was the case of the widow of Mr. Hoal, the late Postmaster-General, who died in the execution of his duties. Had Mr. Hoal lived, and remained in the service a few years longer, he would have been entitled to a pension of about £800 a year in consequence of his service. The committee refused to make any allowance whatever to the widow. There was also a very similar case, arising out of the petition of Mrs. Bell, widow of a Magistrate, who, he believed, was about 57 or 58 years of age, and who died in the Service. In two or three years more Mr. Bell would have been entitled to retire on a pension of £600 or £700 a year. No grant whatever was recommended on the petition of the widow. The late Mr. Bell served the State for nearly forty years. There was a third case— that of the widow of a man in the Railway Department, who contracted pneumonia while in the Service, and died in a few days. The widow presented a petition to the House for consideration, and got nothing. Sir Edgar added that no private employer in the world, if he had a servant in his employ for 40 years, and that servant died, would leave the widow and family without any provision whatever. He admitted that the pension law of the Cape was at some fault, but in the Cape Parliament, with one exception, claims of this kind had always been recognised. He should, therefore, move that the petitions of Mrs. Hoal and Mrs, Bell be referred back to the Pensions Committee for consideration.

said that this was not the proper stage to move, and that the hon. member ought to bring the matter up in committee of the whole House.

pointed out that here there was a recommendation that £100 be granted as a gratuity to the widow of the Parliamentary draughtsman, and yet the committee refused an allowance to the widow of an officer like the Postmaster-General.

said the committee’s report showed most unequal treatment. The committee recommended £100 to the widow of the late Parliamentary draughtsman of the old Cape Parliament, whereas no gratuity was recommended to the widow of the late Postmaster-General, who died in harness, but who, if he had lived, would have been entitled to a pension of £800.

said that the task of the committee was a most unpleasant one, and the hon. member complained about unequal treatment; but he wished to point out that neither the widow of the late Mr. Joubert nor the widow of the late Mr. Hoal had a legal claim. The committee inquired into the financial position of Mrs. Hoal. and it was found that she had some means, and was fairly well off. He wished to add that the late Mr. Hoal was one of the best public servants they had ever had. (Cheers.) The circumstances of Mrs. Hoal, however, were not what one might call desperate, and her children were worthy chips of the old block. They seemed to be getting on very well, and he hoped they would have distinguished careers. These were the circumstances which made the committee adopt a different principle tin dealing with the two cases. He wished he had been a millionaire, or rather that the committee had had more money available. If so, it would have dealt with these cases very liberally. Again, he wished to say that these people had no legal claim,

said that the principle upon which the committee appeared to have acted was this that the widows of those members of the Service who in their lifetime took care by way of insurance got nothing, and that the widows of those members of the Service who spent their money and made no provision for those dependent upon them were provided for.

referred to the very hard case of the widow of Dr. Hutcheon late Veterinary Surgeon or the Cape. Shortly before his death that officer was put into a position by the Government which demanded from him a very serious increase of work, and there could be no doubt about it that he fell a victim to it. When he died it was found that his widow had been left very badly provided for, and an application was made on several occasions in the old Cape Parliament for relief, but on each occasion it was refused.

was understood to say that Mrs. Hutcheon got a small gratuity.

said that he was extremely sorry at the opposition shown in the case of the widow of the late Parliamentary draughtsman, and he did not think it was quite fair to draw a distinction between the widow of a Civil Servant and the widow of a Parliamentary officer. He would like to remind the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) that officers in the public service had a widows’ pensions fund to which they had to subscribe. They had to pay one per cent of their salaries to that fund, and in the case of Mr. Hoal— he would like to endorse every word that had been said by the Minister of Railways with regard to the distinguished public service rendered by Mr. Hoal—he contributed to the fund, and his widow drew, or would draw, £70 a year. In the case of the late Parliamentary draughtsman, although he served the old Cape Parliament for over 20 years, there was no widows’ pensions fund to which he could contribute, and consequently it was impossible for him to make provision through that medium for his widow. In view of the fact that Mr. Joubert could not contribute to a pensions fund, and did not receive two months’ full pay on being retired from the public service, he did not think the House, by adopting the committee’s recommendation, would be acting too generously towards the widow. (Hear, hear.)

said he considered the committee made a mistake in making the recommendation it did in regard to the widow of the late Mr. Joubert. He thought the committee was laying down a very had precedent. The hon. member for George said the committee made the recommendation because Mr. Joubert did not have an opportunity of contributing to a pensione fund. That, to his (Mr. Hull’s) mind, made Mr. Joubert’s position all the better. In the Transvaal the widows of Civil Servants were not entitled and were not awarded a single sixpence No wonder the Pensions Fund was growing year by year when gratuities of this sort were given. He was sorry to have to oppose the recommendation, but he felt very strongly that the House would be laying down a most dangerous principle if it accepted the committee’s recommendation. He hoped the House would reject it.

said that so far as the Cape was concerned, there was a precedent for the treatment proposed to be extended to the widow of the late Parliamentary draughtsman. He was not, however, arguing the question as to whether they should treat one better than another.

said he hoped the view expressed by the Minister of Finance would not be accepted by the House. He talked about the swelling of the pension funds by these gratuities, but gratuities had nothing to do with that. Gratuities had never been, heavy in the Cape. As to the question of legality, it was quite true that these people had no legal claims, and that was why they came to the House. If they had legal claims they would have them settled in court. He was on the Cape Pensions Committee at the time the two grants of £100 were made to Mrs. Bell, and it was felt that it should be left to the Union Parliament to lay down some rule in the matter.

said that discussion clearly showed that the Pensions Committee ought not to exist at all. (Hear, hear.) If he were there next session he would do his best to oppose the appointment of such a committee. It was all very well for Sir Edgar Walton to say that any private employer would pay something. Of course the private employer would, but then he was dealing with his own money. (Hear, hear.) But Government was in an entirely different position. (Hear, hear.) The mere fact of making a grant to one person gave a certain show of right to making grants to a dozen others. (Cheers.) The only safe course in dealing with public money was to have a hard and fast line and to adhere to it. (Cheers.) There should be a liberal Pension Fund, so that a man should know what he was entitled to, and he could make provision for his wife and family on that basis. It did not make a case any more deserving because a man died in harness than if he died on pension. A Pensions Committee was an open door to wasteful public expenditure.

said that, as a member of this unfortunate committee, he was inclined to agree with Mr. Duncan that it would be a very desirable thing to do away with the committee. The committee had sat almost daily, and had Listened to the most distressing tales that could be told in any committee-room, and they had to refuse cases which appealed in every possible way to their instincts of humanity. It was absolutely impossible for the committee to do more than it already had done. The greatest possible attention had been paid to every case that had been brought before the committee. On many occasions he had voted some recompense, but the committee was tied to conditions, and he thought that the committee had in every ease rigidly observed those conditions. If the House were going to investigate the work of the Pensions Committee, Parliament would require another two months in which to go through the work, and then it would have some chance of seeing whether justice was done. If particular cases were picked out, and harrowing details were given, he was sure that the members of the Pensions Committee would be looked upon as a set of hard-hearted persons, who had no sort of humanity in their souls. The work of the committee was very difficult and heartbreaking. The cure for such discussions as they had had to-day was to have a hard and fast pension law, and then to have no appeals to that House at all. That would be the only way of ridding themselves of a very onerous and invidious task.

said even if the committee were done away with, petitions would still pour in, and special committees would be appointed to deal with individual cases. The House should have some sort of State-aided pension fund, to which all Civil Servants should be compelled to contribute, in order to make provision for their dependants. The Widows’ Pension Fund was so small that it was hardly worth while taking notice of.

said they could not ladle out State money. As it was, hon. members denounced the huge pension list, and it would be going too far to pension officials’ widows.

put the question, that a gratuity of £100 be awarded to Mrs. Joubert, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

moved that the item be referred back to the committee. He said he did this on behalf of the Minister of the Interior, who was anxious to give evidence, and to place further information before the committee on the matter.

The motion was agreed to.

On a report by the committee, that they were unable to recommend that the applications of some 60 petitioners be acceded to.

moved that to petitions of Harriet E. Hoal and Eliza M. Bell be referred back to the committee.

moved that the petition of J. W. Dummy be referred back. He said he wished to give evidence before the Select Committee on the matter.

moved that all the petitions enumerated in section 2 of the Select Committee’s report be referred back to the Select Committee. Why, he asked, should they select a few eases to be sent back?

said he thought that only cases should be referred back in regard to which it was desired to call further evidence. Sir E. Walton had asked that certain petitions should be sent back without giving the slightest indication to the committee as to what lines they were to proceed upon. It was placing the committee in a most difficult position. Let the House, if it wished, lay down the principle that the widows and families of civil Servants should be provided for by the State. Otherwise, this question was purely a matter of charity.

hoped that the committee would decide not to refer any of these matters back. The Select Committee, he knew, had had a most disagreeable task. He voted against one of their decisions just now, and he did so because he felt it would be most inconsistent to refuse a great number of people, and at the same time to deal with a ease dike this, as if they were generously doling out public money by way of gift. The proper course in regard to Mrs. Joubert, and those in a similar position, would be for their friends to make up a sum of money for them, and not to come to the House and ask the House to deal with public money as if it were their own money, which, he should hope, most of them would be wilding to give in causes of charity. They had no right to be generous with public money.

asked why Mrs. Joubert should not come to the House for assistance? They were dealing with the case of men who had served the public; and surely they were bound, by common humanity, to make some sort of provision for the relief of these cases.

said that however pension laws or regulations were drawn up, cases were bound to arise which called for special consideration. He did not see why the House should not go into these matters, because, if not, the House was delegating its powers to the Select Committee. If Mr. Merriman’s argument were brought to its logical conclusion, there would be no gratuities whatever. He moved that case No. 27, J. W. Goldsworthy, be referred back.

appealed to hon. members to proceed a little quicker with the matter before them, or he would move to report progress. (Cheers.)

said that if these petitions were referred back to the committee, they would only deal with them again as they had already dealt with them.

Mr. Jagger and Mr. Struben withdrew their motions.

Sir T. Smartt’s motion, to refer case No. 25 back, was agreed to.

Sir E. Walton’s motion (in regard to case No. 60) was negatived, and in regard to Mrs. H. E. Hoal, was agreed to.

The remaining recommendations in the two reports were agreed to, and reported to the House.

Consideration of the report was sat down for to-morrow.

said that it was impossible to reconcile the figures in the documents that they had before them, and he therefore suggested that the vote should stand, over until tomorrow, so that they might become acquainted, with the real position of affairs.

said that the change in the figures was occasioned by another line beyond those in the schedule to the Bill having been added. He had that afternoon laid the report of the Board on the table concerning the construction of these lines. He would suggest that for the present they should go on with the lines in the schedule to the Bill.

also thought the vote should stand over until tomorrow.

suggested that the Minister should explain to the committee the financial arrangements in connection with the construction of these lines.

asked whether it was intended to go on with the Idutywa-Butterworth line?

said that it was intended to proceed with that line without delay.

said that there were twelve new lines, and he would suggest that they should be considered seriatim.

said it appeared that certain lines which were sanctioned by the Cape Parliament in 1906, and which had been partly gone on with, were now in a peculiar position. It was proposed that the money voted by the Cape Parliament for those lines should be pooled and voted for some other purposes. He did not think that was playing the game.

said that it was hardily fair to the committee to expect them, on such a bald statement as had been placed before them, to vote money for new lines. They had no details whatever before them.

said that the Hoopstad and Kroonstad districts were most suitable for growing mealies, but owing to high rates and the absence of suitable railway facilities, people said that it did not pay them to go in for mealies. If any place in South Africa needed a railway in order to develop agriculture it was Hoopstad. The Free State had earmarked the repaid repatriation advances for railway construction, but so far that Province had been dealt with in a niggardly way. Railway construction was the only policy that could save the North western Free State.

said he associated himself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus), and when this vote came on, he would walk out of the House. He declined to pledge himself to any lines unless he was fully conversant with the details, and these details he had not got.

asked whether it was the intention to build the lines which figured in the schedule, because in the past Parliament had authorised the construction of certain lines, and that was the last they had heard of the matter? What had become of the Belmont-Douglas line, which had been authorised in the Cape Parliament? He must say that he was deeply disappointed that no notice had been taken of all the requests from people of that district for the construction of that line, or other lines in the North-west, where they were absolutely necessary. They did not ask for well-ballasted lines, and up-to-date carriages and dining saloons. They would be quite content with a light line and old carriages, and even a speed of ten to twelve miles an hour, so long as something were done. If they went in for further railway construction, the North-west should receive first consideration. Other people did not know how the North-western Districts of the Cape Province were cut off from the rest of the country. The Prieska line, short as it was, paid its way, and other lines would pay equally well.

said that they had a bald statement put before them; they had absolutely no information, although the proposed expenditure was two and a quarter millions He had been accustomed to see railway legislation introduced in other Legislatures in South Africa, but never before had he seen a statement like the one now presented. No wonder the Minister of Railways ran away; he ought to run away also. (Laughter.) There were eight or nine proposals put before them, but they had no information about them. The Minister should deal in detail with every line. He would move that progress be reported, in order that proper information should be supplied. Hon. members did not even know the gauge of the proposed lines. The Minister should) make a complete statement on the subject.

said the course suggested by Sir George Farrar was exactly the one he intended) to follow, and he would give the information when necessary. The information before the committee was quite as full as used to be supplied to the Cape Parliament, and he was told on very good authority that the information and surveys were just as complete—and in many instances more so—than when lines were authorised in the Transvaal. Of course, if they wanted to throw out the scheme one stick was as good as another. Of course, those who did not get lines were dissatisfied, and they always would be. If they waited for a scheme that would satisfy everybody no more branch lines would be built. Therefore let them take what they could get. Railway construction in the Union should he continuous, and they should not have very large proposals in one year which would run very serious risk of being shipwrecked. The question now was whether the individual lines were in themselves good. He sympathised with Mr. Kuhn. The Prieska line, as far as it had gone, was very satisfactory. He thought that line was introduced by Sir Thomas Smartt.

No; you did.

I have done so many good things in my life that I have forgotten some of them. (Laughter.) Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said the question of serving Carnarvon had purposely been left over, and he would! ask the Railway Board to consider all the routes by which the Northwest could be served. He could not say more than that, because it would depend on the report of the Railway Board. To Mr. Theron he would say that the Province that came out worst was the Cape, but that was a narrow view to take of the matter. He would ask those hon. members who had not got what they wanted to support the present scheme in the hope of obtaining what they desired later on. If they were to embark on detail surveys as had been suggested, it would involve a very large expenditure. Since Union, added Mr. Sauer, Ministers had done the very best they could under the most trying circumstances.

said that before they discussed the lines item by item, Mr. Sauer should put the House in full possession of the facts, because he (Sir Thomas) was under the impression that if it passed the amounts it would annul Acts of Parliament passed by the late Parliaments of the old colonies authorising the construction of certain lines of railway. As he understood it, the committee was being asked practically to annul the authority for building 200 miles of railway in the Cape, and in its place to give authority for the building of 100 miles never before discussed. Well, he contended the Minister should take the first opportunity of informing the House of the reason for that position. It had always been understood that certain lines had had to be delayed during the depression, but that, when times of prosperity returned, those lines would be proceeded with before any new projects were introduced. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the report of the Railway Board that the question was only brought to their notice on February 26 last, and that it was impossible for them to go fully info the matter, would it not be advisable for the Minister, when he was introducing his railway proposals, simply to confine himself to the lines which were absolutely necessary to cope with East Coast fever, and to devote the rest of the money to the construction of the lines already approved of? He agreed with Sir George Farrar that the information before the House was very meagre. In the Cape Parliament, in almost every case statements were laid before Parliament showing the approximate cost of the new lines, the approximate amount of the traffic likely to be dealt with, and the approximate amount of the profit or loss. Without such information it was impossible for the House to judge as to the necessity for proposed lines. He would again appeal to the Minister to carry out the obligations he had to the various Provinces before Union, and to let these other projects alone, excepting the lines necessary to cope with East Coast fever, until the House had full information.

said he was glad to hear the Minister’s promise to give them more information, but the report that was before them bitterly disappointed them. If they lived Long enough, however, they might be lucky enough to see another railway constructed in his constituency. The railways were stated to be under the control of the Board, which had to run the lines on business principles; but he asked, was it a business principle to lay these matters before them without an adequate report from that Board? As to what Sir Thomas Smartt had said, he must say that in the old Free State Parliament the desirability had been felt of constructing a railway in the North-western part of that Province. Surveys had been made. The engineers had recommended the line, and they were entitled to that line just as much as the North-western portions of the Cape were. Hoopstad and the district to the north of Boshof were as fertile as any in South Africa, and it would certainly be in accordance with business principles to construct a line there. There were, it was true, two lines there, but the best part of the district lay between them, and the Fourteen Streams line, as far as the Free State was concerned, was a “dead” line, because there was no bridge across the Vaal. The hon. member went on to speak of the valuable salt-pans in the district, and dilated on how much more could be done if the railway were built which he advocated. If the abolition of the Railway Board were moved, he would support the motion.

also regretted that an adequate report had not been submitted; and said that here they were voting away millions of money on lines about which they had no proper information. As to what Mr. Sauer had said, he asked whether they were children to be told that they must not be too impatient to-day, but must wait until to-morrow? He agreed with what Mr. Steyl had said as to the desirability of a line in the North-western portions of the Orange Free State, but at the same time it was necessary that the Belmont line, which had been authorised by the Cape Parliament in 1906, should be built, as it would serve as fertile a district. He could not vote for these loan proposals unless he had an assurance that the Belmont-Douglas line would be built. As to what Mr. Steyl had said about saltpans, if the Belmont line were built millions of bags of salt could be sent down every year. On the understanding that that line would be built, many persons had spent money in buying property and constructing irrigation works in that district; and he hoped that it would never go forth that these people had been misled by Parliament. The line would be 55 miles in length, and was estimated to cost £100,000. He felt very strongly on the matter, and would not be doing his duty unless he stated in no uncertain voice what dissatisfaction was felt because it was not proposed to go on with that line. People had been misled, and the North-western districts of the Cape had been unjustly treated.

also expressed his disappointment at the report before them, and said that he felt inclined to move a reduction of the proposed loan. He could not understand why the Railway Board had not reported in favour of the construction of the Wakkerstroom-Volksrust line. The district had exported 1,609 tons of goods and products in one month, and imported 2,500 tons; was that not a case of a district needing further development? A large trade could be built up in regard to cream; nothing would develop the dairy industry so much as a railway line. The Board should be made to understand that lines had to be built in order to develop agricultural districts. Whenever the mines cried out for a line they obtained it at once, though they were perishing assets.

said that the action of the Minister had no doubt brought comfort to the members who were interested in the lines under schedule (E). What about those members from whom the Minister had taken the last hope? How about the members who had got lines adopted by the Cape House, and who now saw the funds voted for those lines taken away to build other lines? They would like to knowhow that came about. He found he was asked tovote£118,000, which was to be spent on a railway in the district of Cathcart and said that that money should be spent on lines elsewhere in South Africa. (Hear hear.) He would like to know why that had been done. Was it a recommendation of the Board? Had these lines been condemned by the Board? If this meant that the district he represented was to have taken away from it the sum of money voted by the Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope, and that the district was to receive no consideration whatever, he was going to fight it for all he was worth. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had referred to the fact that, in regard to a certain number of lines which were authorised in 1906, they did not propose to go on with those lines, but that they proposed to take those borrowing powers towards building other lines. In the first place, he would say to the hon. member that he was aware that borrowing powers not exercised must be revived. The Auditor-General had held so. The Minister of Finance had stated that he intended to proceed on those lines. He understood that the whole House applauded that statement. It was a very sound policy. Therefore, these being unexercised (borrowing powers, he (Mr. Sauer) had no money, unless he came to Parliament; he had no power to proceed with those lines. He would say to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that he had two years in which to build some of those lines to which he had referred. He passed the Bill in 1906. “The hon. member steam-rollered us,” Mr. Sauer added. His hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Mr. dagger) and himself (Mr. Sauer) were very much opposed to same of those lines. But for two years the hon. member (Sir T. Smartt) sat still and did nothing. He did not build the line from Cathcart. Then as to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus), who had made a point that there was not sufficient detailed information, he (Mr. Sauer) (had stated that when they came to the particular lines he hoped to give information which would be satisfactory. The hon. member had referred them to the practice of the Natal Parliament in these matters. He (Mr. Sauer) had a return of a number of lines authorised in Natal, but not begun. It was a long list. But to take one line—the Vryheid line—all the information given was “to or in the direction of.” Well, he proposed to give much more definite information than that. As he had already said, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) had two years in which to build the lines referred to, and he did not see how he (Mr. Sauer) could now put them in the schedule, and ask Parliament to vote for them, unless the Railway Board had reported upon them. He could not begin the lines referred to, because the money was not available, and he was hopeless in the matter. He wished to assure the hon. member for the Border that he was not talking the money voted for the Cathcart line to build the lines in the present schedule, because there was no money to take.

pointed out that, under Act 54 of 1906 (Cape), the Cape Government was given power to borrow over £2,600,000 for the railway lines referred to. The money was actually borrowed, but had been used for other purposes, and the proper thing to do in the circumstances was to repay all the money which had been used for other purposes. The Minister knew perfectly well that it was not necessary to come to Parliament. The money was there.

It is not there.

He knows very well—

It is spent.

My hon. friend knows the old Cape tactics as well as I do. When you borrow money in the way, and use it temporarily for other purposes, you repay it again, and in the ordinary course of events that would have been done. Proceeding, Mr. Jagger said he agreed with what other hon. members had said about the absence of details. The proper thing to do was to have all the information printed.

That has never been done before.

Most certainly it has been done before. In 1906 we had the engineer’s report before us with the cost, and the lie of the country, and so on. It is not fair—it is not business—to ask us to sanction this expenditure of money without giving us the fullest possible information. Referring to the Belmont-Douglas line, authorised by the old Cape Parliament, he said be thought the Government had treated these districts very badly. He was opposed to the construction of that line when it was proposed, but since then people had put considerable sums of money into the district, believing that as the line had been sanctioned, it would be constructed, and he thought the Government were breaking faith with them.

said that the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Border (Mr. Blaine) was not satisfactory. He said that he had no money in hand, and could not go on with the Gathcart line. Only 10 or 12 days ago the Minister had the money, but as the Board condemned two or three of the lines proposed, he immediately reduced the amount. Although the Board condemned two or three lines, surely it was open to the Minister to build one or two others. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the question of the extension of railways in Natal. Mr. Sauer should have paid some little attention to the opinions of the late Natal Parliament on the lines required in that Province. Because Natal adhered to the understanding arrived at in the Convention, and raised no loans for railway purposes, it was thrown back in their teeth that no provision had been made for new railways. Would the Minister inquire into the matter during the recess, so as to give Natal the lines it so urgently needed? Would the Government, if it could not raise the money, use the powers granted by the Natal Parliament for (giving out the lines to construction by private persons on a guarantee to pay interest at 3½ per cent.?

asked whether the contract between the Government and the Messina Co. contained the same terms as the contract that existed in the Transvaal? Would the Government be entitled to expropriate? Was the line to be constructed via Leydedorp? If so, the extension to Messina would save the Selati line, as originally proposed, from financial disaster. He asked whether the branch limes would be credited with ten per cent, of the profits made on the main lines to which the former acted as feeders? He advocated the construction of two lines to the Waterberg tin mines, next year. By the time the (gold mines were exhausted, the country would have to fall back on the tin mines for stability, and it was but reasonable to expect that those mines would be linked up. Waterberg consisted of an enormous area, but was practically without a railway line. If a line were constructed to Rooiberg, the hon. member for Georgetown, who owned the tin mine in that locality, would be given a splendid opportunity of carrying his theory into practice by contributing to the cost of construction. A lime should be built from Warmbaths into the Springbok Flats, the future granary of South Africa.

said that when the Minister eat on the Railway Committee of the old Cape Parliament some years ago, he recommended the line he had referred to. The case for this railway had been proved up to the hilt by the people there, who felt very sore at the project being shelved, after the line had been authorised and the money voted. There had been no justification shown for talking the money away for this purpose and using it to build other lines. There was no district which had greater potentialities if it were developed.

said that though he, too, was disappointed, he would not oppose the loan, because he felt that the money would be well spent. He trusted his turn would come next year, though he regretted that the Minister was not asking for larger borrowing powers now. One of the two lines to he constructed in the Free State was not really a new project, because the Free State Parliament had authorised its construction in 1909. The Winburg branch line should be extended because as long ago as 1899 the Volksraad had decided that an extension should be made. Part of the earthworks were ready, and the line would tap an excellent tract of country, especially in the vicinity of Marquardt. The hon. member quoted figures as to the amount of agricultural produce supplied by farms in the neighbourhood. The North-western districts of the Free State should be provided with further railway communication as well. Petitions in favour had been referred to the Government, but the Railway Board’s report made no mention of them. He asked what had become of the petitions?

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that as far as he was concerned he would regret the Railway Board being abolished, because there were so many different interests which has to be looked after that they needed experts to go into all the various matters, and report thereon, but they should be real experts, who knew the country and who could estimate different factors at their true value. He hoped the Minister would cause an investigation to be made into the matter of the extension of certain lines in the Winburg district, such as the line from Senekal to Marquardt. He hoped that they would have that report before them next session. The Minister had emphasised the payability of branch lines. Well, why did he not build more of them.? They would improve the main line traffic.

I would like to make a suggestion to the committee which may facilitate business. We had a very interesting discussion this afternoon, and I have certainly no reason to complain about anything which has been said or the manner in which the discussion has been carried out: but, as hon. members know, the procedure this year is unusual, and differs somewhat from what we have been accustomed to. Formerly, in the Cape Parliament, and in other Parliaments too, in case of railway construction, a Bill was introduced to construct a certain line of railway, and then at the second reading the Minister explained the details more fully to the House, and the reasons why authority was asked for. We then met afterwards and discussed it more fully, but we never went into Committee of Ways and Means and discussed the provisions of the Bill there—never to my knowledge. What I would suggest is that the committee votes this amount now asked for, and then it will still have the power to deal with the Bill itself. I will give all information then, and my hon. friends will have an opportunity of studying the figures. When we are at the second reading the House will have the Bill for the construction of railways, with all the proposed lines in, and we shall be able to reject any lines the House likes.

suggested that they should adopt the (Minister’s suggestion, and take this vote. When the Bill providing for the construction of certain lines of railway came before the House they could take the second reading debate on all the lines, and then when they went into committee they could take the lines seriatim.

said that the position seemed to him a little illogical, because if they gave the Minister authority to raise pretty well two and a quarter millions of money for the construction of certain lines, how could they afterwards go back upon that?

said that one of the difficulties was that they could not take the lines seriatim until they went into committee on the Bill. He was sure that his hon. friend would not be hampered at that stage in regard to raising any point he desired.

said it seemed to him that if he voted for this, he should be voting for the application of money authorised by the old Cape Parliament to be borrowed for a line in his own district to other purposes altogether. He asked whether the Board had approved of the diversion of these votes from the purposes for which they were granted?

said that whether provision was made for the construction of these lines from votes originally granted for other Lines made no difference whatever. Supposing they were to build any of the lines that had been placed in the Bill, and spend this amount of two millions, his hon. friend (Mr. Blaine) would not be in any worse position. The old votes had lapsed, and there was no legal authority now by which they could borrow money for those purposes. Any of these lines would first have to go to the Board for report. (Therefore, he could not see how his hon. friend would be in any way in a worse position.

asked whether the authority given under the Cape Act of 1906 was obliterated?

asked whether, if they accepted the Minister’s suggestion, and went into committee on the Bill, it would be competent, supposing the House approved, to substitute another line for any one appearing in the Bill?

replied that it would not be competent to move in a new line, and that they could not build any new railways without the authority of the Board. He added that even if those Acts, to which his hon. friend (Mr. Blaine) had referred, had not been repealed, they would, in respect of those lines, have to proceed by getting a report from the Board, and getting the authority of Parliament to build those lines, because the authority, he took it, had already lapsed.

said he was somewhat puzzled as to the necessity for the £2,000,000. They were providing for an expenditure of £5,899,000 for the period 1910-12, and the revised summary showed that they would have in hand £4,524,000. Deducting these amounts, they thus would require £1,365,000. He would like to know what the difference of £634,000 was required for?

said that the Minister of Railways was putting the cart before the horse, because he was asking the House to decide the amount to be spent before it had decided which lines it was prepared to authorise. He considered the House should be in possession of all the details of the lines which had been recommended by the Board. Certain lines which had been built were absolutely useless, and surely it was essential to have the fullest information about the proposed lines, if they were not going to perpetuate what had been done in the past He considered that the House had not been properly treated.

said he supported the Minister to a very great extent. The South Africa Act laid it down that proposals for the construction of new railways, before being submitted to Parliament, should be considered by the Railway Board, and consequently, if they wished to build lines apart from the Board, the expenditure would have to be met out of the general revenue of the country. There were certain lines which he should like to see constructed, but he was not going to oppose the proposals which the Board had recommended because he could not get the lines he wanted. They must assume that the proposals recommended by the Board were not political, and that the lines were not being built to favour certain constituencies.

agreed with the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that it was wrong first to vote the money and then consider which lines were going to be built. He suggested that the Minister should report progress, and consider the lines to be constructed.

said he would like to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the position taken up by Mr. Sauer as to the non-construction of railways authorised by the late Colonial Governments previous to Union. Were those lines placed before the Railway Board? Parliament should know the cost of working and the probable traffic of the proposed new lines.

said he would like to know if the lines now proposed had been approved of by the Runaway Board under section 130 of the Act of Union?

Yes, they are. The Government proposes, and the Board disposes. Every line was submitted to the Board, which approved of them.

said he understood that although the committee could not propose new lines, it could propose an amendment to any of the lines in the schedule.

You can’t do that.

You always can do that. I think it is quite clear that you can do that, and it is quite clear that the Board must report on these lines first.

said that under the old system in the Gape, if there were a proposal to build a line from A to B. to: cost a million, they could substitute, say, from A to C, provided that they kept the cost within a million, although he remembered one Speaker who would not allow them even to change the name of the destination. He (Mr. Sauer) held that they could not introduce a line until the Board had reported on it. After Union, any fresh proposals must be reported on by the Board.

said that if Parliament sent a proposal for a new line to the Railway Board, and the Board did not approve of it, and Parliament said it should be built, and its working resulted in a loss, then Parliament must provide the deficit. In his opinion, the lines authorised by the old Parliaments of the late colonies, and not yet built, still stood, and, therefore, the Union had just the same responsibility with regard to these lines that the Colonial Governments would have had. The Union Government inherited the Acts of Parliament of the late Colonial Governments. The Cape Government had power, if it, borrowed money for railways, to spend it on rinderpest or on building roads, or on any public works included in loan provision. The Union Government was doing the same thing, and had exactly the same responsibility as the Cape Government had. If the Minister would state that that was his view, it would relieve the anxiety of many people.

said that what he desired to know was whether the Cape Act was dead, or whether it was suspended?

said that if these proposals killed the Cathcart-Fairford line, he must vote against them. He wanted the assurance that be would not be voting away the money raised for that line.

said he did not think that these proposals would do any more killing than there was already. The position of the line mentioned would not he affected, because, if they wanted to build that line, fresh money would have to be found and this Parliament would have to give authority.

thought the Minister of Justice should be called in and asked for his interpretation of clause 135 of the Act of Union. The whole point was whether Acts of Parliaments of the former Colonies had lapsed with the loan funds, and whether, if the Legislatures of the different Colonies had sanctioned the construction of certain lines of railway, these railways would come under the definition of new lines, as contemplated by the Act? The House would like to have a definite opinion from the Law Officer of the Crown as to whether the Government could not go on with these works under the statutory authority given previous to Union.

said this matter was thoroughly thrashed out in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He took much the same view as Sir T. W. Smartt, that the Act of Union did not nullify these Acts of the Colonies, and so did the Minister of Finance for a long time; but the Minister had stated that the opinions of the very best legal authorities he could get hold of were that the Act of Union did not continue the power to make these lines. The Minister of Finance, however, did not shelter himself behind (that, but in the schedule to the Act he had revived all these powers, and all they were doing now was that, instead of leaving it to the will of the Minister, as they used to do, to pick out certain lines, the Minister would now come to the House, and say exactly what lines it was proposed to go on with, with the money they raised.

said that on May 31, £4,300 had been spent on the Schoombie-Maraisburg line, £7,800 on the Cathcart-Fairford line, and £1,800 on the particular line he had mentioned, which was really a prolongation of the latter line. Well, the Schoombie line had been gone on with, and the other line, on which twice as much had been spent, at the date of Union had not only been stopped, but the money voted for it by the Cape Parliament had been applied towards the building of some unknown lines.

said that they had a perfect right to ask for the opinion of the legal adviser of the Government on that matter.

It will make no difference.

It will make a difference to us to know whether the lines already authorised by Parliament should go through the same procedure as other lines or not.

I may say it was comparatively recently I had to go into it, and my view is that the spirit of the Act is that no lines should be begun after Union until they have been approved of by the Board. That is my view, but I don’t think either view has anything to do with the passing of this money.

read clause 121 of the South Africa Act, and said that unfortunately it said “funds,” not “borrowing funds.” In their case there were no funds; the Acts had not been put into force, and the money had not been raised, but it was borrowing power. The legal opinion he had got was that their Acts of Parliament, which provided for certain lines of railway, came in under the other clauses of the Act of Union. He held the same views as the Minister; but as far as these lines were concerned, the Union Government had the same responsibility as the old Cape Government had had.

Suppose at some future time the Government decides to build the Cathcart lines, would you set about it as if it were a proposal for a new line, or would it come before the House, and would the borrowing powers given under the Act of 1906 be revived?

The Government would have to ask the Board to report on these lines, and ask the House for authority.

It seems to me that the remedy for all this is to be found in a proper report from the Board, and all this discussion would have been curtailed a great deal. The Board has only had 42 days in which to frame its report. I go further than the Minister. Not only all these lines but the lines already under construction, might very well have been reported upon. There is no reason why the Board should not do more useful work than is absolutely prescribed under the Act of Union. Proceeding, he said that it was to defeat the partiality of all Governments with regard to the construction of certain lines that the Board had been established. They must also remember that some of these lines were constructed when the three colonies were in rivalry; but now they were all to be considered as part of one system. He hoped that the Minister would take the moral out of that; give the Board plenty of time, and let them give the most ample of reports. Then they would get rid of the political influences, and get rid of the chance.

Am I to understand that we cannot move any new railway lines in?

No.

If all proposals have been submitted to the Railway Board, has the Minister submitted that of the Springs Council, a deputation from which I had the honour of introducing to his august presence? (Laughter.) Did he submit it; and, if so, why did not they report?

asked whether he would have an opportunity, at the second reading of the Bill, to discuss lines not included in the schedule?

answered in the affirmative.

again raised the question of the position of the lines authorised by the Act of 1906 in relation to the unexpended balances, and said that if these unexpended balances were to be put into the loan of £2,000,000, it followed as night followed day that those lines were going.

said that, whether this £2,000,000 were got in the way proposed or not, the same procedure would have to he gone through to construct the Whittlesea line, for instance. The Board would have to report upon it.

said that the Government had got a report upon the line, and the Cape House had passed it.

replying to Mr. Madeley, said that he did not think the hon. member could be serious when he asked if, because a deputation had waited upon him in regard to a certain line, he had submitted the matter to the Board.

put the question that the vote be agreed to, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

The Estimates were reported, and it was agreed that the report be considered tomorrow.

said that, as it was desired that certain figures should be laid before the House, he would move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the adoption of the report of the Select Committee on the Pomeroy Commonage.

Agreed to.

said he must point out that in clause 11 the Senate had inserted the following words in line 44 in the Dutch copy: “De Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerken in de Province Kaap de Goede Hoop, Oranje Vrijstaat, en Natal, en de Nederduits Hervormde of Gereformeerde Kerk in de Transvaal.” There were, however, no corresponding words in the English copy. He was informed that this was not an omission, and that the term “Dutch Reformed Church” in the English copy was supposed to interpret the amendment made by the Senate.

said that he had noticed the discrepancy. Were the promoters of the Bill satisfied that the term“ Dutch Reformed Church” in the English copy was sufficiently comprehensive?

said the Senate did not consider it necessary to translate the words inserted in the Dutch copy into English. He, however, would be quite in favour of the translation being made in the English copy.

suggested that the words inserted be treated as proper names. If they were so treated, they would not require to be translated.

said that if the alterations he regarded as formal in order to bring the two copies into conformity, then he would urge the hon. member for Colesberg to move that the words be inserted in the English copy.

then formally moved that after the words “the term ‘ Dutch Reformed Church ’ shall include,” the following be inserted: “the Nederduits Gereformeerde Churches in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, Orange Free State and Natal, and the Nederduits Hervormde or Gereformeerde Church in the Transvaal and ”.

seconded.

stated that as this amendment was consequential upon the amendment in the Dutch version, it was in order.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendment in the Dutch version of the preamble was agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Bill. He said that the object of the Bill was to put an end to certain forms of vandalism, which had done much damage in the past. The Bill was very simple. In its original form it provided for only two things. The first was that none of those relics should be exported from the country without the permission of the Minister. They knew that within the last five or ten years there had been a big traffic in these relics. They were exported on a fairly large scale. The second thing provided for was the penalties to be imposed. The Senate had moved in a new clause 4, dealing with the expropriation of land and compensation, and if there were any serious objection to it, he would rather see it deleted than sacrifice the Bill

in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said some of these paintings were of greater artistic merit than some people supposed. They were more truthful to nature than pictures painted by people belonging to civilised races.

thought there was one fault in the Bill in that it gave a false idea that the paintings would be safeguarded. The caves along the Drakensberg were full of these paintings, many of which were going to ruin. The only way to preserve the paintings would be to cut them off and place them in museums, as owing to their exposed position it would be absolutely impossible to take any care of them.

supported the Bill, but he thought it did not go far enough—there was nothing in it to prevent people destroying the paintings.

said he was pleased to see the Bill, but he objected to the right of expropriation.

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

moved: That the House do now resolve itself into committee on the Bill, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

opposed the clause.

said the Government should be enabled to expropriate the land on which these relics were, if the owner persistently neglected the paintings or caused them damage.

said he objected to expropriation, on the ground that private owners should not be interfered with. He opposed the clause.

supported the last speaker.

thought if these paintings were worth preserving, people should have the right of access to them.

said the rights of private owners should be protected, and if necessary, Government, with the consent of the owners, should expropriate the land on which the relics were.

said he thought the Minister should accept the clause as suggested by the Senate, and provide that there should be expropriation, with compensation. He was in favour of expropriation, but it was perfectly clear the committee would not agree to expropriation without compensation.

said that from the point of view of procedure this clause could not be passed, because expropriation meant expropriation for value. If they were to insist on expropriation, this Bill would never become law. The best course, therefore, would be to delete the whole of clause 4, and he moved accordingly.

The clause was negatived.

The Bill was reported with an amendment, which was agreed to.

moved that the order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn. He said he did so with very deep regret. He believed that the Bill now before the House was essentially a good and a sound Bill, but at this stage of the session he despaired of passing it into law. It was clear from the importance of the Bill, and the amendments and the time the discussion of the first clause had taken that it was impossible to pass it seeing that the session would probably come to an end very early next week. That being so, and as the Government were extremely anxious that something should be done in the matter before the House adjourned, he proposed to adopt the following course: that the present Bill be discharged from the Order paper, and that he would give notice at once, if that were carried, to introduce to-morrow a short Bill dealing with the situation as it was at present. The House had already voted £25,000 in the Estimates towards the relief of sufferers from miners’ phthisis. He proposed in a short Bill to take power to levy on the mine-owners an additional amount of £25,000, so that there would be a fund of £50,000. He proposed that the Governor-General should appoint a Board, that that Board should administer this fund and give provisional compensation to sufferers. The Board could be called into existence almost at once, and could start immediately to administer this relief. In the meantime, he proposed also in this Bill to conduct a medical examination on the mines. It was clear that they had not sufficient information in regard to the extent and the gravity of the disease on the mines to know exactly what would be the extent of the liability which any legislation would entail. That being the case, he thought there was good ground for some examination—some research and examination—before permanent legislation was put on the Statute-book. Now such medical examination could be conducted quite confidential and the Bill would state that the results of such examination would be confidential, that the identity of no cases must be disclosed, under penalties, and that the results would only be used for statistical purposes, for the information of the House when they came to deal with miners’ phthisis in a permanent Bill next year. Then they could deal fully, and he hoped finally, with this most important subject. He regretted very much that he had to take this step, but he thought it was the only course that could be adopted at this stage of the session if anything was to be done at all in the matter.

seconded.

said he regarded the Bill as necessary, but seeing that the Government was prepared to do something in the matter for the time being, he supported the proposal. It was urgently necessary to grant the sufferers relief, and he would have been pleased to devote the necessary time to the original Bill.

said that, the announcement the Minister had just made was a fitting finale to what had taken place. It was consistent with the course the Minister had taken with regard to this matter. Only that afternoon the Prime Minister announced to the House that this Bull was one of the Bills he was going on with. He could quite see that this Bill was now doomed, and he would recall to the House what had happened antecedent to this Bill. The hon. member read extracts from speeches made by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government during the elections with regard to immediate provision having to be made for compensation to miners who suffered from phthisis. Relying upon these pledges and the pledges given by the Minister of Finance, at the first opportunity afforded by the Budget debate, he had asked the Minister of Finance to give an explicit promise that such legislation would be introduced and passed that session. On March 2 General Smuts, in moving the second reading of the Bill, had made it perfectly clear that the principles he was adopting were such that there was no doubt that miners’ phthisis would be dealt with on the basis of ordinary workmen’s compensation. He had defied any hon. member to frame any scheme by which they could evolve a fund system for miners’ phthisis. Placing the most explicit confidence in the speeches made by Ministers, they had anticipated that the measure would have been proceeded with in the ordinary course, but it had been delayed for five or six weeks, and got lower and lower down on the Order paper. They had continually asked the Government when they would go on with it, because they were suspicious of that long delay. While they had had faith in the Ministers, the latter had themselves done everything they could to destroy that faith that any man in that country could have in the pledges made by Ministers. Ministerial dissent Mr. Sauer the other day had thrown a gibe at them, and referred to the Jacobins, who said, “Perish our colonies, but let us maintain our principles.” That was infinitely better—whatever these principles might have been— than what the Government seemed to have adopted: “Perish our principles, but let us maintain our majority.” (Ministerial dissent.) Be said that the tergiversation over that matter and the course which the Government had taken should absolutely down the Government, and rob it of every particle of confidence of every right-minded person in the country. The hon. member went on to say that the Government had all along taken its line from the Opposition and from Mr. Phillips, who had dictated the policy of the Government in that respect. The Minister came there that evening, and who again dictated his policy? The hon. member for Yeoville. It was clear to that House; it was clear to the world. He thought that in common decency they could not separate without making some provision for those in distress. He could only say that if anything came of that lamentable scandal, it should be that the mining resources of that country were of sufficient importance to have a Minister to look after them, and they saw perfectly clearly that no Minister, however industrious he might be, could possibly fulfill the duties of Minister of Mines in conjunction with the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Defence, and other things. The Minister, the Ministry, and the Government had played false with the country. (Ministerial dissent.)

said he was sorry that he had not insisted on his motion that the Bill be read a second time six months hence, because if he had done so the Minister would have had time to consult the various sections of the population. As for the members of the Labour party, their action was calculated to do the working-man nothing but harm. Though he knew nothing about mining matters, it was easy to see that there was something wrong, and that the House had to set it right. He wished to move that the House go into committee that day six months.

The hon. member cannot move that. The Order has not been read.

said that he had listened with great astonishment that evening, at such a late hour in the session, to the proposal put forward by the Minister to discharge this Order from the Order paper, the more so because during the whole of the debates that had taken place, they had not heard a single member of the House object to the principle of the Bill. He could not help thinking that the people of this country would say that the House had been trifling with this question. The miners had been put off year after year in order that the Closer Union movement went through. They had had long debates in that House in regard to the Stock Diseases Bill. Now they were not bringing forward this question of miners’ phthisis on behalf of their constituents. It was a matter that affected the whole nation. Hon. members on the Ministerial side thought, and thought wrongly, that this disease was confined to the Uitlander. (VOICES: “No.”) They were overlooking the fact that each year a larger percentage of men born in this country were being employed in the industry, that large numbers of those men were now sufferers from the disease, and that they would go back into the country and spread the results of this disease. “Our object,” Mr. Sampson declared, “is to arrest it.” Proceeding, he said the Minister now proposed that during the coming twelve months there should be a medical examination. Well, the miners would resist a medical examination, because they knew that as the outcome of the examination they would lose their employment without receiving anything permanent in its place. He advised the Minister to go on with the Bill, and let hon. members take the responsibility of throwing it out.

deprecated the attitude of the Labour members.

said hon. members could not be altogether surprised at Government coming in for a certain amount of criticism over this matter. They had had two Bills, one after the other, and now they were at the end of the session as far off as ever they were in considering that important question. He thought the Minister, rather late in the day, had adopted the only course he could have taken, and hon. members could do no good at the present moment in opposing this desire to get rid of the relics of these two Bills, and to take adequate practical means of dealing with existing cases. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the third measure would be one which would commend itself to the common-sense, not only of that House, but of people outside who were more immediately connected with the state of affairs. He hoped the measure would provide substantial relief, and on a basis which would make compensation easily accessible, and be given to the recipients in such a way as would best serve their needs.

said he regretted exceedingly that Government had withdrawn the measure. He hoped the Board would deal liberally with the cases that came before it.

said, terrible as miners’ phthisis was, he would rather be in the last stages of that disease than be in the Minister’s shoes when he went home that night. Was it more important that the session should be closed on Monday than that steps should be taken to deal with this disease? It was very evident that because Government members wished to get back home— (Cries of “Oh.”) Do not let them deny it. He had walked in the lobbies, and had heard what members on the other side had said about wanting to get back home. And why? If the House passed a salary of £60 a month for twelve months, they would be willing to stay there the whole year. They had been told that hon. members opposite sympathised with these men who were suffering and dying. Well, how were they showing their sympathy? They were prepared to vote compensation which worked out at the rate of £25 to each victim The Labour party had been charged with obstruction in connection with this measure. He denied that there had been any obstruction on that Bench. When the Bill was in committee, the discussion on the first clause took 3½ hours, out of which the Labour members had taken exactly 12 minutes. And an hour and a half was taken up with talk about what was, and what was not, a doctor’s certificate. Now, the Minister had stated that a medical investigation would be made. They had been told that it Would be conducted in a manner which would not reveal the results to the employers. Well, whatever steps were taken to keep the results dark, they would, of a certainty, become known to all the owners right along the Reef. He thought one reason why this Rill had been wrecked was because of the speech made by Mr. Merriman, when he misled the House by speaking of the miners getting £50 a month. That was not the case. Many of them received exceptionally low wages, and the average did not come anywhere near £40 a month. Would £40 a month content hon. members if they knew they were going to die by; reason of their very occupation within seven years? The principle of including occupational diseases under Workman’s Compensation was recognised in every civilised country in the world. If South Africa did not recognise it, it was because it was uncivilised. The reason they wished to have the disease placed under the Workman’s Compensation Act was that employers would then see that the risks were reduced to an absolute minimum. In England there was a terrible disease known as “phossy jaw,” which affected the people who made matches. The disease was due to the use of phosphorus, but when “phossy jaw” was placed in the schedule of the Workman’s Compensation Act a substitute was found for it. In the same way, as soon as the mine-owners had to play compensation for miners’ phthisis, proper precautions would be taken, and the disease cease to exist on the Rand.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill withdrawn.

moved that the order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

seconded.

said that if the Bill did not go through that session, the railway workers of Natal would be in a very unsatisfactory position.

asked whether the Bill could not be taken up at the same stage next session at which it was now left?

said that it would be a pity to see the Bill discharged. He endorsed what the previous speaker had said.

said that in view of what hon. members had Said, he would move that the matter be set down for to-morrow.

seconded.

It was agreed that the order be discharged and set down for to-morrow.