from George McGillivray, carpenter instructor, Lovedale.

from inhabitants of Vrede, praying the House to consider the desirability of abolishing the office of District Commandant.

from S. M. Kriel, of Boshof, widow of D. J. Kriel, formerly Resident Magistrate.

from J. Jackson, an ex-trooper, District Mounted Police.

in support of the petition of H. J. le Riche.

from J. J. Jackson Brownlee, teacher.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House, reporting the Bill, without amendment.

The Bill was read a third time.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

The report was adopted.

as Chairman, brought up the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

They recommended that the pension awarded to J. W. Dummy, formerly a clerk in the Public Works Department (Cape), be increased to £150 3s. 9d. per annum; the award to Dr. G. Turner, late Medical Officer of Health for the Transvaal, of a gratuity of £1,000; that the pension Of B. P. Wall, late Engineer-in-chief of the Central South African Railways, be calculated as if he had been on the permanent staff of the Transvaal Civil Service, and a contributor to the Transvaal Civil Service Pension Fund from the date of his appointment; that the break in the service of G. Butler, clerk, Railway Department, be condoned; that the petition of Agnes L. Johnston be referred to the Government.

They were unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained: F. J. Nance, W. G. Glennie, H. J. Penny, W. Brown, Helena D. Lategan, G. R. van Wielligh, S. W. Gillespie, Helena S. Vatble, P. J. Roos, J. J. Blatherwick, J. Clench, C. Driesse, Annie Forde, W. McConnell, Mary E. Sprenger, F. A. L. Smit, and C. Daniell.

The committee were unable to recommend that the petition of J. B. Burnett be entertained, but expressed the desire that suitable employment be found for him.

With reference to the petition of Harriet E. Hoal, referred back to them, the committee were unable to make any recommendation.

With reference to the petitions of R. A. Simmons, J. P. Kruger, F. A. Smit and four others, M. N. Krijnauw, J. A. Liebenberg, and E. Maas, the committee regretted that, as they had not received the reports called for from the various Government departments, they were unable to report thereon.

J. W. SAUER, Chairman.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, April 24, 1911.

moved that the report be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

seconded.

Agreed to!

Controllers of Excise (Cape and Natal), year ended December 31, 1910.

Conciliation and Investigation Board (Transvaal), dispute between South African Operative Masons’ Society (Johannesburg) and Master Builders’ Association (Johannesburg), with recommendations of the dissenting member of the Board.

Regulations for the guidance of auditors of accounts in the Cape, Natal, Transvaal, and Orange Free State.

Principal Proclamations and Government Notices, Department of Native Affairs, November 11, 1910, to April 7, 1911.

Rules and regulations for the disposal of lands in Natal acquired for the purposes of closer settlement, and Crown lands in Natal.

Clerk of the House.

asked if any further facts could be placed before the House in regard to the deplorable accident on the Kowie Railway?

said that nothing had been brought to his notice beyond what had appeared in the press, excepting that he was told that the death-roll was larger than was reported. He was sorry to say the deaths were likely to number 29 or 30. He might take this opportunity of saying that immediately the accident became known, be set to work to see what responsibility the Government of the country had in regard to the right of inspection and supervision, and he found they had none at all. As hon. members knew, it was a private line, and run quite a part from any supervision or control by the Government. He had addressed a letter to the Ministerof Justice that morning, and suggested that, asthe railway could not institute an inquiry, there should been inquiry notwithstanding, and he also suggested that in addition to a judicial officer, there should be one or two persons put on to the Commission who had expert knowledge, and he had no doubt some such Commission would be appointed to make the fullest inquiry into the cause of the catastrophe. (Hear, hear.)

moved that Government business have precedence tomorrow.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the second reading. He said that the Bill made provision on a provisional basis for sufferers from miners’ phthisis. As he explained a few nights ago, hon. members would see that the sum provided for compensation consisted of a contribution of £25,000 by the Government and £25,000 levied on the mines. This fund was to be administered by a Board, which would grant provisional compensation under rules to be laid down by the Governor-General. Such compensation would be deducted from any final compensation which might afterwards be awarded. Besides this compensation, the Bill provided that a medical examination might be held on the mines, he results of which examination should be secret. It was only intended to be such an examination, as would give the House and the Government information which would be required when they came to deal more precisely with the whole question of compensation for miners’ phthisis.

said that before going any further with the Bill it would be well to know if the Bill had the approval and leave of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips)?

said that he did not think that remark showed a proper spirit An dealing with the question. Continuing, he said that to pass a Bill like that in the dying days of the session and to affirm the principle which was contained in this Bill—which, to his mind, was a wrong principle, and one that was deleterious to the country—was putting a very hard burden upon the House. It was said this was done because there was no time. Well, they would have to go back by-and-bye to their constituents, and explain that because there was no time to go into the matter fully—and it was not their fault—they had been obliged to carry out a principle with which they entirely disagreed, and to make a present out of the taxpayers’ pockets to the richest industry in South Africa. He did not think it was right, and they could not help feeling that owing to the nostalgia— laudable, certainly, but inconvenient—of members of the House they had yielded to the seductive personality of his hon. friend opposite (Ma. Phillips), and adopted a principle which was wholly wrong. He said now, as he said (before, that there was no possible precedent for asking the taxpayers of this country to contribute to a disease incurred in consequence of occupation— a purely occupational disease. It was the business, to his mind, purely and simply of the mine-owners—(hear, hear)— the people who derived the benefit from this occupation—and he thought, considering the pay that the men got for the risks they ran, the duty also lay upon the people themselves to (contribute to the evils which their fellow-men sustained from this disease. (Hear, hear.) The whole of this compensation was a matter that lay between the mine-owners and the workers, and it was in no sort of way a thing for the people of this country to take upon their shoulders. (Hear, hear.) There was a grave danger in this, a grave danger which hon. members may not see, but perhaps, some day or another, they may remember the words that he said. This was the first occasion in which there had been a direct conflict, so to say, between the general feeling of the House and the gigantic industry which dominated South Africa, and the gigantic industry had won. They had put on to the taxpayers of this country a responsibility which it bore alone That was not right. Why were they asked to contribute to these people—these human derelicts, as they were called by hon. members opposite? Why? Because they had lost their lives in adding to the enormous profits of this industry. (Hear, hear.) How was it that they did not hear of any “human derelicts” at the De Beers Co.? There had been very serious accidents there. They had provided for their own workmen. At present they had, he was informed, between 150 and 200 workmen on pension. They did not ask the State to contribute to that pension. They had got a friendly society, largely supported by that great company, which provided for accidents, incapacity, and things of that kind. But the State was asked to contribute a paltry sum this year, in comparison to our revenue—£25,000—but, if it were a paltry sum, it was a paltry sum for that large industry to contribute, and the whole of this thing ought to come out of the pockets of the mine-owners. (Hear, hear.) To him it seemed a false step that they were taking now. That they were going to take it, and he should be a party to it, he knew, because they voted the money in a light hearted way one night. He was not in his place that night; he ought to have been. What rankled in his mind was that, instead of doing their duty and seeing that the groper people contributed to the loss that arose from this dreadful disease, they were going out of their way to incur a partnership which they had no right to incur.

said that the principle of the Government contributing towards that (compensation was a dangerous one, and he agreed with Mr. Merriman. If (they started with this, they might be asked (for compensation later in regard to other industries, and where would it all end? Surely miners earned enough, that they could put aside a small sum weekly or monthly out of their wages, so that they would be provided for? He trusted the gold industry would receive no further doles.

said that he considered it was the duty of the State to contribute something to that fund, and he appealed to hon. members not to raise any further objections. He desired to know whether any provision had been made for the widows and orphans of miners on the Rand who had died from miners’ phthisis—widows and orphans who had been left unprovided for. He deprecated the attitude adopted by the Labour parity in regard to that measure, and hoped that Vrededorp would never be represented by a man like Mr. Creswell. The Labour party misrepresented the real workers, and he trusted the Board would consist of the right class of people.

said that from the remarks made by Mr. Merriman and Mr. Schoeman there might be a false impression created in the Cape Province—that the taxpayers of the Cape Province might ask why they in the Union Parliament should be asked to bear a portion of the burden? He was going to say a word or two on that view. He was going to support the second reading of the Bill. He quite agreed with the Government that it was the duty of the Union Parliament to take this matter in hand. As to what extent the Union Parliament should vote the taxpayers’ money to the relief of the victims of miners’ phthisis, he agreed in principle very much with Mr. Merriman. He (Sir Edgar) said that industries must provide for themselves. There was no doubt that the Union Parliament were going beyond what some of them might be prepared to do in voting money for a particular industry. But he would draw the attention of the Cape members to the fact that the Cape Colony had also handed over a heavy indebtedness to Union in its Pension Fund— (hear, hear)—so that it did not lie with them to protest against accepting a Union liability from the Transvaal in this case. This liability was very much smaller than the liability the Cape Colony had handed over.

Is that for public servants?

Yes.

Not private servants?

Does that alter the fact?

Very much indeed.

In this case the Union taxpayer is to pay £25,000. How much has he to pay for the indebtedness on the Pension Fund? (Hear, hear.) Finally, Sir Edgar said they must not be too insistent on the sort of point raised by Mr. Merriman; but the Cape members must remember that if they were giving something away, they were handing over very heavy liabilities. That was one of the reasons why he was going to support the Bill.

said if the mining industry had expected any generosity from the Union Parliament, except in the shape of increased taxation, it would be sadly disappointed. Mr. Merriman had had a great deal to say about the greed of the mine-owners, and stated that they used rock drills in order to increase their profits. When the Chinese were engaged, people said: “Turn them out of the country and do with less labour, and employ more labour-saving machinery and employ rock drills.” Suppose they did away with rock drills, in the corporation with which he was connected it would mean a thousand white men out of employment.

said that he had not altered his opinion since the original Bill had been before them; because if once the State admitted its liability to contribute towards compensation, as was now proposed, the question arose where would it stop, if they once began with the gold mining industry? What took place in the De Beers mine? People were killed and injured there, yet there had never been a proposal that the State should contribute towards compensation, as was proposed now. If he voted for the second reading of that Bill he did so because it was a measure for giving temporary relief; but, as he had said, he was against the principle of the State contributing, and he trusted there would be no further calls on the Exchequer.

said he did not agree with the arguments of Sir George Farrar. As to the coal, the mines got full value for their money. If there were no railways, what would it cost the companies to carry coal from the pits to the mines? Then, De Beers were taxed the same as the gold mines were. The mines were taxed heavier than other industries were for the reason that they were taxed according to the ability to bear taxation, and because the mines were taking away some of the assets of the country. The argument that, because the State had not dealt with miners’ phthisis in the past it ought to make some contribution now, was a very strange one. De Beers were in exactly the same position as the gold mines were, but the former did not wait until the State came forward before they made provision for their employees. Large institutions like the Standard Bank created pension funds for their employees, but because an institution neglected to do that, was the State to make it up? It was quite within the power of the companies to create these funds at any time. But it was an unheard-of liability to say that because the Government had not compelled the companies to do this it must take some of the responsibility. The liability either belonged to the industry or it did not. It was quite true that the Cape handed over a large pension fund deficit to the Union, but the Cape was the oldest State, and naturally its pension fund was much larger than the pension funds of the Transvaal and Free State. Apart from that, pensions were paid to Civil Servants because they gave their services to the State, and therein lay the essential difference. The miners gave their services to private companies, which should take their responsibility. He had received a letter from a Cape Town Odd-Fellow, who expressed the opinion that the Government should not contribute, and that if it did people who followed other dangerous occupations would be justified in claiming also. To contribute would be to establish a had principle.

said that he regretted that £25,000 had been voted. He differed from Mr. Geldenhuys, who no doubt had voiced the opinions of his constituents; but he (Mr. Kuhn) must add that his own constituents were against the State contributing. Mr. Merriman had frankly and fairly put the case for the taxpayer. Sir George Farrar had spoken of the direct and indirect revenue made by the State out of the gold-mining industry; but how much did not the State make out of agriculture, and yet was anything similar proposed in connection with agriculture? Now, the State had to contribute £25,000 in regard to some of the richest corporations in the world. He regretted that Sir George Farrar had alluded to the war and war compensation. That the miners themselves should contribute was only right. He hoped that amendments would be made, and that the Government would be absolutely limited to the payment of that £25,000.

said the question was: Were they going to give relief in peculiar circumstances? He did not think anybody would ask Parliament to relieve private enterprises of any kind, but his hon. friends were quite mistaken in comparing the gold mining companies of the Witwatersrand with the De Beers Co. The De Beers Co. had got a permanent staff; it had got one control; it knew its employees; it knew its liability; and it knew that what had happened had happened over a period of years, during which the men had worked for them. But there were hundreds of companies on the Rand, and no one knew where its liability began, and the comparison with the De Beers Co. was absolutely misleading. They could not compare them at all. In this case he was glad that the Minister had taken this step, and he hoped the ensuing year would be given to going into the question very thoroughly, because he for one was not wholly in agreement with the measures which had been put forward. Whilst on the subject he would like to say that they would have the greatest possible difficulty in arriving at what was workable and fair. If the State came into the matter on the tripartite system they would establish a precedent. He did not see much difference between occupations of disease and occupations of risk. The effect was the same. It did not matter to the widow whether her husband died from miners’ phthisis or anything else. He wanted to say one more word. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) said that the companies could have made provision in the past, and did not need Government help. As he had pointed out, that was absolutely impossible, because they did not know what was their liability. That was the essence of the difficulty. They could make a mam answerable for an accident, but they could not make a man answerable for a disease when nobody knew where it originated. Supposing a company started operations on the 1st of January this year, and it took over the men from a company liquidated 18 months ago, it would be absolutely impossible for that company to be responsible for the disease, because it had not been working long enough. Still, it would have to pay the whole of the compensation, because the other company was liquidated. That was absolutely unworkable. He would like to say that it must be 12 or 14 years ago since they first tried to deal with miners’ phthisis. If he gave instances of the difficulties, it would be too hard on the men who suffered. The difficulties were not all on one side. The men became accustomed to the risks, they became indifferent to the risks, and consequently they must have regulations and penalties. The member for Georgetown pointed out that one reason why they required legislation was because there were good employees and had employees, and those who knew the Witwatersrand knew where to look for them, and knew the difficulties that had been experienced, and knew that the good men of the place had been dragged down time after time by one or two inhuman brutes, who took no trouble at all, and had no care. They were few, but they gave a had name. He might say that recently he had taken the hat round on behalf of a man who suffered from miners’ phthisis, and while other mine-owners helped, the main on whose mine he had contracted it would not give a bob. They must see that the responsibility was put on the man who should bear it. The miners did not want generosity; they wanted their rights. They did not want to go to the owners as a favour and say, “Help me out,” or “Help my wife and children when I am gone.” They wanted their rights to be assured by law. If, as the Minister said, the main object was to put an end to miners’ phthisis, then they were going to be up against one or two serious difficulties. They would have to face those difficulties. The first obligation that faced them was that they would have to have compulsory medical examination. They could never get away from that. It was objected to, he knew, but if the men were going to be insured, and were going to have their rights, they must recognise they were going to be paid by another class, and that that class had the right to know its liabilities. Another thing was, that, if they meant to put an end to miners’ phthisis, they would have to debar men suffering from the disease from going underground. That would be felt as a hardship by the men, who would be obliged to turn out and learn a new occupation, but if they did not do that, the men must die. They were under sentence of death if they were allowed to go on working underground. And, moreover, their condition would get worse, and they would probably get tuberculosis, and become agents for infecting other people. They had to face this question courageously. Otherwise, they would not get out of any Bill either benefit for the country or relief for the community. (Hear, hear.)

described the development of miners’ phthisis. He said that minens’ phthisis should be treated, in his opinion, as an occupational disease. It should not be forgotten that a man who contracted miners’ phthisis could recover and live to an old age, if he left the mine and lived in conditions which were favourable. That being so, the miners could not object to submitting to a medical examination, when they knew the State would protect them. It was useless to talk of encouraging immigration unless they took steps to protect and save the people who were now in the country. These men worked hard, and were an asset to the State Parliament had to look at the matter from a national standpoint, and to see that the people of the country were protected, before they began to formulate schemes for bringing others in from oversea. They should see that these people on the mines who stood in imminent danger of death had the assurance of getting healthy conditions in the mines, and had the assurance also that when they dropped by the wayside, the Government would take them by the band and help them into better circumstances. (Hear, bear.)

said be was glad to hear what Dr. De Jager had said, If they all took up the matter in the same spirit they would easily solve that difficult problem. (Hear, hear.) They had had the matter before them in different forms, but the opposition against the State doing anything to assist was wrong. (Hear, hear.) They had cattle diseases, and to a certain extent the State came to the assistance of the people in eradicating these diseases, because it was in the interests of the country. Well, if the State did that, should it not also come to the assistance of human beings whose lives were in danger? Hear, bear.) He was sure that such a comparatively small sum as £25,000 would save many lives. Suppose that under certain circumstances the State worked its own mines, would not the question of miners’ phthisis become wholly a State matter? He did not agree with everything which had been said by hon. members opposite who represented the mining interests, because he thought that the mine-owners had been neglectful, to a certain extent, in not adequately grappling with the disease, and had not looked after their underground employees as they should. Well, if these people were not adequately looked after, whose duty was it to look after them if not the State’s? If the mine-owners had to pay the whole of the compensation, what would happen? Those of their employees who were found to be suffering from phthisis would be discharged; thousands of men would be thrown out of work, and the result would be that the State would ultimately have to come to their relief. They would become a burden on the State. Personally, he must say he was in favour of the original measure, but the question was a difficult one, and he hoped that a thorough investigation would be made into the whole matter. They must not prejudge the matter now, as some hon. members had done, by saying that the State must absolutely be limited to that £25,000, and that no further assistance should be given. Where people’s lives were in danger, it was the duty of the State to step in. (Cheers.) Then he would like hon. members not to forget that the State derived a large revenue from the mines—the State was a fairly large shareholder us far as the profits were concerned. There had been some talk about the “general taxpayer,” but if they allocated part of the profit tax to that fund, they need not go to the “general taxpayer” at all. (Hear, bear.)

who was almost inaudible, agreed with the Prime Minister that, as the State drew a large amount of revenue from the mines, it was only fair that is should make some provision for compensation.

in supporting the Bill, said that he and others on that side considered that the Government ought to bear a very considerable share in the compensation towards these people. The objection they had to the previous Bill was the uncertainty of the amount of that compensation. They supported this Bill because they accepted the principle that the Government was in part liable for this compensation, and because they considered that during the recess an ample inquiry should be made into this matter, so that evidence would be before them when they met again, which would enable them to deal with the whole question on a scientific basis.

said that he supported the measure, but in committee he would move to alter the wording, so that instead of compensation it should be looked upon as a gratuity. He considered that this was a liability which was handed over to them by the Government of the Transvaal, who ought to have made provision in time to protect these people against themselves. No “compensation” could be claimed because phthisis was a purely occupational disease; the State should therefore compel the mine-owners as well as the workers to make proper provision.

said that this Bill apparently was a temporary measure, a provisional measure, and this House was likely to hear a great deal more upon the subject, of miners’ phthisis in the future. They all understood that the late Government of the Transvaal did not do its duty towards the mining population of the Transvaal. They had gone into partnership with the Transvaal, and they had taken over with the Transvaal what he might call a moral responsibility for that neglect. What he did object to, however, was this, that it seemed to be asserted that since the mining industry of the Transvaal contributed very largely to the revenue of the Union, therefore the Government were jointly responsible with the mining industry towards these people. He was prepared to vote for any sum in reason far compensation to people who had suffered by the neglect of the people whom they had taken into partnership in the Union. (Hear, hear.)

hoped that a clause would be inserted to the effect that the Bill would not operate after Parliament again met. A new principle was being introduced, and as the disease had existed for some time on the mines they would have to be careful. The State had not deprived the miners of anything; consequently, they should not refer to “compensation” but to a gratuity. He blamed the late Transvaal Government, for not stepping in.

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

moved in line 5 to omit the words “provisional compensation” for the purpose of inserting “allowances.”

suggested that they should use the word “gratuity.”

No, no; it is not a gratuity. We don’t want to pay them a gratuity. We are not compensating them for anything; you cannot, compensate a man if he is going to die. The proper word is “allowances. ”

accepted the amendment, which was agreed to.

said a limit should be put. He moved to insert the words “during the past two years.”

did not agree with this limit.

asked what proof would they have that the men had contracted the disease in the mines at all? They might go away and contract the disease in Cornwall, and then come back again. If they were earning a living in some other capacity, surely they would not want an allowance. However, he would alter his amendment to “during the past five years.”

moved that the amendment should read “at any time during the past five years.”

thought Mr. Merriman’s amendment went too far. The Board should be given power to review any award it had made in case of a man resuming work.

hoped the amendment would not be accepted. The whole Bill was framed in order to give a wide discretion to the Board.

said the amendment was not required, because the Board was empowered to give relief to people who had been employed in the mines. Mr. J. X. MERRIMAN (Victoria West) said his ‘amendment dealt with those who were incapacitated by the disease.

said that, under the amendment, a man who had worked a day might claim compensation. A man should have worked a certain minimum time before he was entitled to claim.

said the Bill was only to afford a certain amount of relief, and if they went into all the details they would land themselves into a big discussion.

said the Board would have to consider not only the men, but, in case of their death, their dependents.

suggested that after compensation, the words “at their discretion” be inserted.

appealed to Mr. Merriman to leave the clause as it was. It was merely a question of giving relief to people who were on their beam ends.

withdrew his previous amendment, and substituted the following: “Who shall be incapacitated by the disease known as miners’ phthisis from pursuing their avocations, or who may be suspended on account of such disease by any rule or regulation in that behalf. He could not understand the Bill as it was framed. By simply having the words “who are suffering from the disease …” it would be possible for the Board to compensate half of the people who were working underground and earning good wages. He wished to make the clause as clear as possible by saying “who are incapacitated from following their avocations. ”

said that the object of the Bill was to compensate those who were suffering not technically, but actually from the disease, and he thought it would be better on the whole to leave the matter to the discretion of the Board than to put in the amendment of the right hon. gentleman.

said that the Bill was only a temporary expedient to meet the most urgent cases, and he deprecated too much interference with this clause. The Bill, he admitted, was imperfect, but it would meet the purposes for which it was intended. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had referred to the possibility of compensating half of the men working underground, but he (Dr. Watkins) wanted to point out that the Board would only have £50,000 at its disposal, and it would go to work in a most careful manner.

said he was surprised at the extraordinary view his hon. friend took of the duties of a member of Parliament. After all, the duty of a member of Parliament was to scrutinise and improve measures which were introduced. The evil which had followed the Miners’ Phthisis Bill was that the Minister of the Interior had refused to recognise that people might wish to do well by the State, and that wisdom did hot only reside in one quarter. (Laughter.)

We are on clause 1.

I am arguing, against the hon. member (Dr. Watkins), who takes up the extraordinary position that a member of Parliament is obstructing and not doing his duty when he tries to improve a Bill. This measure is vague, and the hon. member is attaching great faith in this Board. But does he know who they are? They may be five of the biggest fools in South Africa, and he is going to leave it to them.

suggested that the difficulty might be got over by inserting after “who” the words “are or.” The clause would then read: “all persons who are or have been employed in the mines ….” Unless the words “are or” were inserted, many men would be debarred from applying to the Board.

said he hoped they were not going, to adopt the principle of paying men compensation and then allow them to go down the mines again. As regarded the £50,000, he thought that was a very small sum, and should be reserved exclusively for those who were called derelicts—men who could not work; men who were in the last stages of the disease. He supported the amendment of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman).

moved the insertion of the words “wholly or partially” after “who are” in Mr. Merriman’s amendment. He thought they could Safely leave it to the Board to say how much compensation a man should receive.

said he was very much in favour of the matter being left to the discretion of the Board. He did not see why the clause should not stand as it was if the Board were given discretion. He moved after the word “allowance” the insertion of the following, “at their discretion”

moved the insertion of the words “are or.”

Mr. Watermoyer’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Creswell’s, Mr. Chaplin’s, and Mr. Merriman’s amendments were agreed to.

On clause 2, establishment of Miners’ Phthisis Fund,

moved that the amount to be levied on the mining companies be “not less than £25,000,” instead of “equal to £25,000.” The companies might give more.

Agreed to.

moved: That the following be a new sub-section, viz: “(2) The moneys so appropriated and levied shall be paid into a special account at a bank to be approved by the Minister of Mines and shall anything to the contrary in any other law notwithstanding be kept in the name of the Board, and the Board may from time to time invest any portion of the balance of the fund in such manner as may be approved by the Governor-General. ”

suggested the alteration of the terms of the amendment so as to make it clearer that the funds should be kept for the purpose of compensation.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 3, powers and duties of the Board,

moved to amend the clause so as to make it read that the Board shall “receive” applications instead of “invite” applications.

moved: In line 12, to omit “suffering” and to substitute “incapacitated.”

moved: In line 13, after “aforesaid,” to insert “duly supported by a medical certificate.”

said there might be a good deal more than a medical certificate. All these things would have to be provided for in detail in the regulations.

said he thought the amendment would have to be made to make the clause fit in with clause 4.

said he would alter clause 4 to make it correspond.

said that under this Bill a sufferer might be given an allowance to keep him alive until a lump sum was given under future legislation. In that case, he should not have the allowance deducted from the lump sum he would receive later on. He therefore thought the proviso as to deductions should be deleted, and he moved accordingly.

said that the allowance might include a lump sum, in which case the proviso ought to be retained.

said that he did not know, but he supposed the interpretation of “allowance” would be a daily, weekly, or monthly allowance. He did not know that it would be advisable to drop the proviso, because in exceptional cases one might dispose of the case by a lump sum.

urged that if they paid out a lump sum nothing but harm, would accrue to these people, in many cases. The only sound way of doing it was by weekly allowance.

said that a lump sum might be useful to enable a man to start in business. He could assure the right hon. gentleman that there were thrifty men even among miners. (Hear, hear.)

said he desired most strongly to protest against the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) reading into the remarks which he had made an allegation against miners or working men of any kind. His experience in these dealings in small amounts and commuting pensions, etc., was that it was in almost every case a cruel kindness to the people who got the money.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Merriman and Mr. Chaplin were agreed to, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander was withdrawn.

On clause 4, regulations,

moved: In line 21 to omit “provisional compensation” and to substitute “allowances ”; that the following be new sub-sections, to follow sub-section (b), viz.: “(c) the definition of dependants ”; and “(d) the review of any order or award made by the Board under this Act”; in line 23, after “may be” to insert “required or”; to omit sub-section (g) and to substitute the following new subsection, viz.: “(j) the expenditure incidental to the administration of this Act which may be chargeable to the fund.”

Agreed to.

moved the following new clause: “5. The accounts of the Board shall be audited by the Auditor-General, who shall have the power to demand any information he may deem necessary for the purpose of audit, and such accounts when audited shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Agreed to.

thought the power of examination was too general, and might be applied to persons no longer employed on mines. He moved the addition of the following: “Provided, however, that compulsory examination in the case of persons who have been employed on a mine shall not be obligatory where the person concerned signs a form waiving claim to compensation either under this Act or under any measure passed in addition there to or in substitution therefor,”

moved the omission from sub-section 3 of the words which enabled a penalty of £50, or three months, on persons who, when required, failed to submit themselves to medical examination. They should rely on the men to give sufficient information, as a large number of men would voluntarily submit to examination.

said Mr. Merriman had already pointed out the matter to him. He thought if workers refused to submit themselves to examination they should not be entitled to claim compensation. He moved an amendment to the effect that any person who, when required, failed to submit himself to medical examination, should not be entitled to receive any allowance under the Act or any law hereafter passed providing for compensation for persons suffering from miners’ phthisis.

agreed that no compensation should be paid to persons who refused to be examined. (Ministerial cheers.)

thought the penalty for those who refused to be examined was too heavy.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was negatived.

supported Mr. Creswell’s amendment. He thought the punishment was far too great for such an offence.

said that the Bill provided that a man should be debarred from getting compensation under some future law because he had not passed the medical examination prescribed under this Bill. They should only debar men who sought compensation under this Act.

said the Board would only cause suspects to be examined. A sound man going into the mine for the first time would not be examined. They must give the power to examine any men.

said that if the assurance was given that men would not be dismissed as a result of the examination the men would have no objection to the examination.

Mr. Creswell’s amendment was negatived.

General Smuts’s amendment was agreed to

Clause 6 was verbally amended.

The title of the Act was amended by substituting “allowances” for “provisional compensation. ”

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved to omit, “anything to the contrary in any other law notwithstanding” and to add at the end of the clause: “Notwithstanding anything in any other law contained any balance of such moneys remaining unexpended at the end of the financial year shall not be surrendered to the Exchequer account, but shall be administered by the Board for the purposes of this Act.”

seconded.

accepted the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 4 was further verbally amended.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

said: Mr. Speaker,—In presenting the report of the Select Committee which was appointed very nearly five months ago by this House, after a comparatively short discussion, I would like to say that I, and I think every member of the committee, went to the committee-room with a considerable amount of misgiving as to whether any practical result would be attained by the deliberations of the committee. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the question of education and language has been discussed in South Africa for a considerable time past, and that the controversies which raged round that question were bitter, racial, and not conducive to that good feeling which we all hope to see established in South Africa, and we know also that during the recent elections—the first under Union—this question of language in our schools was discussed on practically every platform right through the country, and the feeling on both sides had been worked up almost to fever-heat in several constituencies in the Union, and therefore it was, as I say, with a great deal of misgiving that this committee set to work. Sir, the House will excuse me when I say that in presenting this report here to-day I do so with a considerable amount of pride and satisfaction. (Cheers.) The labours of this committee have been very arduous. We have taken no evidence apart from consulting the four Directors of Education, and getting reports from the departments, but we have dealt with the vital principles, which go down to the very root of the people of South Africa. We have given the question calm, deliberate, and careful consideration, and in presenting the report, it is our earnest desire that our deliberations will lead to a satisfactory settlement of this question in South Africa. As chairman of that committee, I can only say that, although we had to deal with those vital principles, I think every one of that committee was imbued with the idea that it was desirable, in the best interests of our Union—the Union of South Africa—that a satisfactory settlement should be arrived at, and it was due to that desire on the part of the members of the committee that we have been able to present this report to the House. Sir, our task was twofold. First of all, we had to inquire into the existing laws and regulations, to see how far they are in conformity with the provisions of Article 157, the language clause of the Act of Union. The first was as to the equality of language of race, which principle was the foundation of the Act of Union, and the other was as to compulsion. I do not wish to refer in detail to the findings of the committee, because I take it that there is not a single member who has not read the report, but I would like to draw two conclusions which are contained in the report. In regard to inequality, the following summary is given: “Your committee desire to draw attention to the fact that in every case of inequality English is in the more favoured, and Dutch in the less favoured, position.” Now, I am not going into the historical reasons for that now. It is enough to say that as a fact, by the Act of Union, the status of both languages has been so altered that I think that is the last, the closing phase of that part of the book. We now start afresh and anew. Sir, ns regards compulsion, I wish to refer to clause 6, where the following summary is given at the end of the summary on compulsion: “Your committee observe that the Transvaal system permits the individual parent to exempt his child from learning Dutch, and that the Free State system gives some scope to the individual parent, subject to the approval of the Director, but that with these exceptions none of the present systems leave any option to the individual parent as regards the learning of the languages as subjects or their use as mediums of instruction.” As regards inequality, I do not wish to lay any stress or draw any particular inference. Hon. members will see that as regards inequality there is no inequality in the existing laws in the Free State. (Ministerial cheers.) As regards compulsion, there is equality of compulsion, or equality of freedom, or a measure of freedom, whatever that may be. But, having invited the departments to give them a summary of the existing laws and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the first part of their instructions, they sat in the beginning of February this year to consider the question of their future recommendations. After considering the question from both sides, one fact became evident in the committee—that was, that there was no desire on the part of the English-speaking South Africans, nor on the part of the Dutch-speaking South Africans, that any child should be compelled to learn the language which was not his home language. (Hear, hear.) In so far as that was a matter of controversy during the elections, that certainly was not apparent in the committee-room. There was no desire to compel any child to learn the language which was not his home language. (Hear, hear.) A difference of opinion did arise as to whether the child should be compelled to learn his home language. (Hear, hear.)

said that he must say that his hon. friend the Minister of Education had made so fair a speech, and given them so excellent an account of the work of the committee, that he need not go over that ground at all. The hon. member had shown them a kindliness and consideration for which they were all indebted to him. (Hear, hear.) It had not been an easy task, and he knew that the Minister had had no easy task in going over it, because there had, of course, been differences of opinion, and, might he say, heated occasions; but it was due to the Hon. Minister’s tact and judgment that the result had been so satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) There were one or two points he would like to deal with—in the first place, the committee had had a work to do which none of them could minimise: it had to go over the ground of differences which had so long existed, and which had embittered their political history. It had had to settle the language question, which had existed in various conditions ever since he had sat in Parliament. The question was: had that committee succeeded or had it not? He thought it had succeeded—(hear, hear)— because he trusted entirely to the good sense and the good judgment of the House and of the people of the country. (Hear, hear.) The question was whether the country or the House was prepared to give the proposals now before them a fair and an honest trial? If these proposals did not succeed, it would be the duty of a future session or a future House of Parliament to go into the question, and see whether these proposals were workable. He believed that they were educationally sound, and could be put into practice. Of course, it was a compromise; no settlement of the language question could be anything else than a compromise; for he thought that if one went back land, looked over the immediate past—he did not propose to go over the distant past—one must see that when the Act of Union was passed, and clause 137 had been put into it, that meant something; it meant an undoubted change. Up to the passing of the Act of Union, there had been one official language; afterwards there were two official languages, enjoying equal freedom, rights, and opportunities; and he was sure that all of them who had gone on that committee had endeavoured to keep that in front of them, and had admitted that that change had been advisable, and that it involved the alteration., not only of their Parliamentary procedure, but the question of the freedom of both languages in the educational settlement of the country. He was rather inclined to think that it was a successful compromise, because it had not received the enthusiastic support of any side of the House. There had been criticism from those who wanted to see what he (Colonel Crewe) wanted to see, and those who wanted to see what General Beyers wanted to see; but there had been give and take on both sides in the committee, and an honest desire to meet difficulties which were of outstanding importance. They had all of them given up something; he had parted with the dearly-loved principle of parents’ option throughout with regret; but those who were in favour of home-language instruction had such a sound argument that he could not but accept. (Hear, hear.) It had been said (he proceeded) that so long as there was equality, there was no cause for complaint. They had found in the Orange Free State—they had put their signatures to it—that there had been no inequality, but that there had been equality of compulsion. They none of them liked compulsion. The result was that, although they had laid down compulsion for the home language, there was no compulsion as regards the other language, but let them again hope that there being no compulsion would be an incentive, rather than the reverse, to all parents to have their children taught both languages. (Hear, hear.) It had been their first and their chief duty to come to a settlement. They all of them had strong ideas. His hon. friend there (General Beyers) and the Minister of Justice (General Hertzog) held very strong views, and so did they on his side of the House. It was not only that they had to deal with the education question, but also with the language question, and ample opportunity was given in the proposals for the equal use of both languages. It was necessary for a moment to look upon what effect these proposals would have upon the various schools and the school systems of the Provinces. He thought it was fair to say that in Natal, except in the Northern portion, there would be very little change in the educational system; in the Transvaal the change would be material, though not so great as, for example, in the Cape Province, where there would be a very material change, and also in the Orange Free State, if these proposals were to be adopted, as they all hoped they would be. In the Cape system one thong disappeared—the right of the School Committee to select by a majority what the medium of instruction should be in the schools under their control: and, after all, was it not well that it should disappear?

No.

said that his hon. friend never realised that it would be a very material source of danger and of anxiety, and might raise material differences in the Cape Province, if such right of choice were exercised by the committees which had not been exercised in the past. Doubtless as a result of the change which would come in the Cape there would be a material increase in the amount of Dutch taught in the up-country schools. He for one, with clause 137 of the Act of Union before him, could not say that that was wrong.

who was received with cheers, said that he sincerely hoped the House would accept the motion. He wished to make it clear that the acceptance of the report did not bind the Provincial Councils in any way, nor was there any intention to dictate in any way, because it was clear that the question was not one for Parliament to deal with for the first five years after Union, for the question had been left in the hands of the Provincial Councils for the first five years. Most of them were the fathers of existing education laws which the Provincial Councils had inherited. Well, when Colone Crewe’s motion had been introduced there had been only one way open to them; which was to make an investigation, and place something before the country to guide it. No Provincial Council need accept that, but the intention was that they should all approach the question in the same spirit in which it had been raised and discussed in the House. (Hear, hear.) It was his pleasing duty, in the first place, to congratulate the committee heartily on bringing up such a report— because, although there were still some differences of opinion, they were not such differences as to cause any division. He understood that What differences there were wore not differences of principle, but of practice. He understood that the difference was about the first proposal not being so practical as the second one. Therefore, he thought that they could agree with the report as a whole. Nothing could give him greater pleasure than to say that, and he thought the whole of South Africa would be thankful to the committee. (Hear, hear.) If they acted in that spirit they would see that the effect of the motion would be a great one; because, if he understood it correctly, it would be a great step in the right direction. In the National Convention they had some of the wisest land most capable men of South Africa, and although they had solved the language question, they had left the education question to be dealt with later. The Government heartily concurred with the report, and would do all it could to put it into practice, and make it acceptable to both sections of the population. (Hear, hear.) He trusted the Provincial Councils would see their way clear to accept these principles, and put them into practice. If they did so they would see that all racial questions disappeared, and that a better feeling would be created. What would be more pleasant than that in future they might have political differences, it was true, but free from all racial feeling? He hoped they would be able to proceed in future in a spirit of proper understanding between them, and without the bitterness which had unfortunately prevailed in the past. (Hear, hear.) The two languages were there, and people were very sensitive about their language—it was second only to their sensitiveness about their religion —and he hoped that they would respect each other’s language. They should adopt, not a policy of oppression, but a constructive policy. If they placed their language on an equal footing and acted according to the Constitution, they would grow up into a young nation full of joy and prosperity; all the bitterness would belong to the past. As long as they were divided on the educational question they had the unfortunate state of affairs that while they were quarrelling about details tens of thousands of children were growing up uneducated. He hoped that every effort would be made to see that not a child grew up uneducated. (Bear, hear.) They must build up and develop as far as education was concerned. There was room for all to work together, if they only wanted to do so. If they continued to work in that spirit of concord and give and take, they might accomplish anything. (Cheers.) But if they allowed themselves to be divided into two hostile camps and engendered bitter feelings they would never do so. If they trusted each other they would see a time when South Africa, as regards education, need not take a back seat compared with any country in the world. (Cheers.) He would do all in his power to see the principles contained in that report put into practice; and if they worked on these lines they would make happy and prosperous country of South Africa of which they could all be proud. (Cheers.)

said that in the unavoidable absence of the right hon. gentleman the member far Graham’s Town (Sir Starr Jameson), whose absence was never to be more regretted than it was that evening, because, as hon. members on both sides of the House would recognise, it was always his earnest desire that no effort should be spared to try and arrive at a satisfactory understanding on this great question, he (Sir Thomas) rose to express on his behalf and on behalf of hon. members of his side of the House their approval of the unqualified statement made by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of his colleagues, and of the resolution moved by the Minister of Education; to add their appreciation to the remarks of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the untiring services which the members of the committee had rendered; and to express the hope that their services would be of lasting benefit to the future welfare of this country. (General cheers.)

The motion was agreed to amid general cheers.

formally moved the second reading of the Loans Appropriation (1910-1912) Bill.

said that they had got before them three Bills dealing with finance, and he would like the Minister to explain their relationship. Were they granting money twice over?

explained that the Bill provided for the expenditure of a sum of money not exceeding £5,363,000 out of loan moneys for services for the period from May 51, 1910, to March 51, 1912, and the details of all those services had already been fully considered by the members of the committee, and would be found in the White-book, which was discussed very thoroughly several days ago.

I would like to point out—

Oh, the hon. member has already spoken.

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

said that he could not reconcile the figures. He was, like his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, bewildered by the number of Bills.

said that the statement of loan funds showed that the amount which the Minister of Railways and Harbours expected to spend out of loan funds during the period ended March 51, 1912, was £2,000,000.

said that the amount they had been given did not agree with what the Minister got sanctioned in the House the other day.

It is exactly the same amount.

It was not £2,000,000. He withdrew some amounts, and put other amounts in. We are now quite in the dark.

said they had sanctioned £5,889,000. The sum they were supposed to have taken, or would take, from the railway fund was £4,524,000. Deduct that from £5,889,000, it left £1,565,000 as actually required to be borrowed.

No.

said he knew the explanation was given that they were not supposed to realise the whole of the assets during the current year. Why couldn’t they? Surely, these were free balances.

said that the £2,000,000 was a contribution towards the whole of the capital service of the railways.

said that no reason had! been given why they could not use the whole of the available balances.

said that be did not know what his hon. friend was confused about The position seemed to him perfectly clear from the White-book statement.

The amended Green-book does not agree quite with what was got through in Committee of Ways and Means. We are wandering about. We have had six White-books issued.

There were two White-books and three Green-books. (A laugh.)

Six White-books altogether. We had a Green-book, and then an amended Green-book, which appears in white. (More laughter.) On top of this White-book there were certain alterations made by the Minister in Ways and Means. That is what puzzles me.

said he took this to be an amount dealing with the period May 50, 1910, to March 51, 1912. If the whole of the railway fund were to be available in that period, it ought not to be necessary to take as much as £2,000,000 from the loan fund in order to carry out the railway programme.

said that the hon. member must look at the other side of the account also.

The vote was agreed to.

moved the omission of the amount of £120,000, set down for the purchase of Land. He said that this money would simply be placed in the hands of the Minister of Lands without any definite object, and practically he could deal with it as he liked.

said it was beautiful to hear speeches made on public platforms about assisting immigration. The co-operative schemes were started, and they required in the first instance the ground to be bought by Government. Let hon. members knock this amount out and say at once that they did not want to do anything to assist irrigation schemes. People came to Government every day for assistance. No money would be spent that would not be properly accounted to Parliament for. This was a very small portion of the amount which he hoped Parliament would vote Government for this purpose. The object was to have cash in hand to help in the immediate future those who were ready to help themselves.

said that the Minister had not said that this money was to be spent under any Act of Parliament whatever. (Cheers.) These were not irrigation loans which were made under any Act of Parliament, and for these Parliament was always ready to vote money. What land was to be bought, and under what Act of Parliament? He did not think any Parliament in the world would put money in the hands of a Minister to go about buying land with. He hoped the Minister would come and buy his farm at a good topping figure.

There are better investments than that.

I am glad to hear it. Would the Minister lend his own money to a stray person to buy land with? (Laughter.) Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said this opened the door to an amount of jobbery that was unheard of. It was an alarming thing to think they had a Minister to come there with a loose, rambling statement of the kind Mr. Fischer had made. The Minister might make some very had speculations, and what would happen then? It was really giving him money to play with. His hon. friend would do well to withdraw the vote, because it was net needed. The item seemed to him (Mr. Merriman) to be incredible.

said that before they voted the money they would like some explanation as to what it was to be spent upon. The Minister of Lands had followed the example of the Minister of Railways, because in the last hour of the session he brought fabulous votes before Parliament, which hon. members had to vote, unless they wanted to stay here another week. The irrigation schemes in the North should have been financed from the Land Banks, which had large sums at their disposal.

said if the money were to be lent under Irrigation Acts he did not think the House would object to the vote. As it was, the vote would give the Minister power to go about the country buying land. (Hear, hear.) He had never known a vote to be introduced into Parliament in this way. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to know from the Minister what Acts of the Transvaal or the Cape there were which authorised him to ask for this money?

said that perhaps the Minister would tell them that he intended to buy land to put settlers or poor whites on. Was that the intention, or, if not, on what land was it proposed to spend this money?

said it was difficult to say beforehand exactly what land they were going to purchase. Apparently some hon. members wanted the Government to declare what options they had, and what lands it was proposed to buy. Well, if they did that, naturally there was a risk that the farmers would put up the prices. The money was wanted to start Hand settlements. It was impossible to come to the House, and say what pieces of ground were wanted for the purpose. The intention was to appoint a Land Board, which would get the money and buy the necessary land for land settlements, and build dams for irrigation purposes. Many people were clamouring to be put on to the land. It was going too far to distrust he Government about a matter of £120,000. The Minister would not go round himself, but would effect his purchases through Magistrates and agents.

said the reason for the objection was not that the House was opposed to land settlement or irrigation works, but because they were opposed to trusting any Minister with the expenditure of £120,000 for land settlement or anything else, unless the scheme were first submitted to and approved by the House. Let the Minister lay on the table the principles upon which it was proposed to spend this money. The Minister might embark upon a scheme of which Parliament disapproved. If the Minister had a land settlement scheme in his mind, surely the right course was for him to lay his scheme before the House, and to ask them to approve of the principles. If his right hon. friend had many schemes in view, the best thing for him to do was to Work them out, and come forward next session, and get the approval of Parliament in a proper constitutional manner. He regretted exceedingly that he had to speak so strongly against this expenditure, because he was extremely anxious to see land settlement and irrigation works carried out.

And now you delay it.

My hon. friend says I am delaying land settlement, but I am not going to accept the confidence trick entirely. (Laughter ) I want to know bow my right hon. friend (Mr. Fischer) proposes to expend the money, and I would like to task the Minister of the Interior: Has the Cabinet discussed the principles upon which this money is to be expended? (A VOICE: “No.”) If the Cabinet has not, surely even my hon. friend (General Smuts) cannot ask me to support a vote in the dark for £120,000. Proceeding, he said that they had had bitter experience in this matter in the Cape Province. Nothing struck a more severe blow at irrigation than ill-considered and hasty schemes which were brought forward with fair promise of success, but which proved absolutely unsuccessful. In the interests of irrigation he said that the worst thing they could possibly do would be to embark upon Government schemes unless they had the fullest information, and the best scientific advice possible. If schemes which were supported by Government were unsuccessful they would strike a great blow at encouraging private enterprise. The mere fact that Government schemes proved unsuccessful had a great tendency to restrain private individuals from embarking on schemes. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had before him in his mind several schemes of a similar nature which had been embarked upon in the same light-hearted fashion. How many millions of money were spent under the Milner regime in the Transvaal in a similar way, buying laud without any Parliamentary authority? And what was the result? Where were the settlers?

On the land.

(proceeding) said that a wilder scheme was never put before that House. If this question of land settlement were so near to the mind of the Government, why was there no committee? Why was no scheme put before Parliament? They had been in session for five months. This question was to begin at the place where it ought to be finishing. Hon. members were asked to vote £120,000 to be spent at the discretion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fischer), and they should deal with public money as they would with their own money. To go on with a, scheme like this at this time of the session did seem to him to be the maddest folly.

pointed out that the Government wanted to buy laud, laud at the same time it was selling land on the Orange River.

said that they had heard a great deal about settlement schemes, but as a matter of fact under the previous vote they voted £165,000 for that purpose. If his right hon. friend (Mr. Fischer) had come forward with a scheme and laid it before the House, then there would have been something to say far it.

said that hon. members who had criticised these proposals were probably suspecting some big irrigation scheme, but that was not what the Minister had in his mind. He would purchase small holdings in different places, and publicity would enhance the price.

regretted that more provision was not made in the schedule for irrigation works, and hoped that next year more liberal provision would be made for a comprehensive scheme.

was of opinion that it was a wrong principle to allow the Government to take such a large amount of money without any details as to their proposals. The Minister should obtain options during the recess so as to be able to ask for money next year. Parliament could not vote the sum on the present indefinite basis.

explained the system which had been adopted in the Free State, Natal, and the Transvaal in regard to taking large blocks of land and dividing them into smaller plate to enable young settlers to be placed thereon. In the Cape they worked on different lines.

But you say under the (Jape Acts.

The Cape Act will apply to a certain extent— Act 23, 1908. Proceeding, he Complained of the attack made by the right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. Marriman) on the Koppies scheme.

I only asked a question.

Yes, but there are ways of asking a question which may contain an insinuation. Proceeding, Mr. Fischer said the idea was that Government should be able to help men with working capacity, a knowledge of the country, and a certain amount of capital. Ground was going up in value day by day, and the worst that could happen would be the loss of la few thousand pounds. As to Land Banks helping, there was not one in the Cape, and those in the Transvaal and Natal had only small sums in hand. If the vote were rejected, let them bear no more about Government helping people on to the land.

Yon ought to have your plans ready.

When our plans are ready, they will come to a great deal more than this. We want to make some beginning If the vote is rejected, the responsibility rests with the House, and not with the Government.

said the more the Minister explained the matter the bigger the morass he got into. (Laughter.) Under the Cape Irrigation Act the sum of £287,000 was available. The Minister could not offer a clear, connected statement as to what be was going to spend the money on.

said the Minister seemed so Intent on having this sum carried that he (Sir Thomas Smartt) would move that it be reduced by £60,000, on the distinct understanding and assurance that not one penny would be spent without the recommendation of the Director of Irrigation. If the Minister wished to spend money in the Gape, he could assist the Buchuberg scheme.

said he hoped the Minister of Lands would accept the suggestion, and agree to the reduction of the amount by one-half. The £120,000 was merely an estimate by the Minister of what he thought be would be able to spend during the twelve months on the acquisition of land and irrigation works. He knew Mir. Kanthack had been hard at work on schemes, and that he anticipated this whole sum would be required, but no doubt he would be able to manage on £60,000.

said he Would agree to the reduction. He might inform Sir Thomas Smartt that the Buchuberg scheme was not being proceeded with, because the Director of Irrigation had reported that the expenditure would not be warranted by the results. He was not prepared to give the assurance asked for by Sir T. Smartt, because it was wrong in principle to put the advisor above the Minister. Still, he would say he had never acted without the approval of the Director of Irrigation, and to that course he intended to adhere, at any rate, so long as they had Mr. Kanthack. He might add that the Director was already exceedingly disappointed at the smallness of the £120,000, but in the circumstances he would agree to the reduction.

Does the hon. member for Cape Town withdraw his amendment?

Very well.

What!

Well, what can, you do?

Do! You Can register your vote against voting this £60,000, and show what you think of this wild-goose business. Let the country know that you, at any rate, are not responsible for this. It is altogether wrong. If you are going to put yourself in the hands of the experts in this sort of business, you are going to land the country in a mess. I speak as an expert in spending the country’s money, and I Know what mistakes have been made in the past. My hon. friend (Mr. Fischer), I have no doubt, will cost the country hundreds of thousands of pounds before he is out of office.

said he greatly regretted the attitude taken up by Mr. Merriman. He did not think Mr. Merriman should adopt such a position when efforts were being made to assist in the development of the country. It would be wrong to sit still and refuse to do anything for the country. There was much to be done in South Africa, and if the Government did not try to improve the conditions who would? He appreciated the right hon. gentleman’s economical attitude when it came to buildings, but they could not refuse the younger generation assistance. The Select Committee in the Senate had even advocated an annual expenditure of £500,000.

opposed the reduction. Though in regard to irrigation he deferred to the opinions of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, he would point out that at present many people desirous of constructing irrigation works appealed to the Government in vain, because the latter were not entitled to dispose of any funds for that purpose. The £120,000 would enable Government to assist, and he had entire faith in the Minister of Lands, acting on the advice of the Director of Irrigation.

pointed out that the item was not for irrigation proper, but for the purchase of land. That was the difficulty he felt with regard to the Government’s request.

differed from the previous speaker, because, after all, the money was required for the purchase of land on which irrigation works were to be constructed. He trusted, however, that the money would not be spent in the North only.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment having been withdrawn,

The motion to reduce the vote by £60,000 was put, and the “Noes” were declared to have it.

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

asked if he would be in order in moving that the vote be reduced by £60,000? He moved as a compromise that the vote should be reduced by £60,000. The Minister of Finance accepted it. Not alone did he accept it, but he put it to the Minister of Lands that it was a proper thing to accept.

I think the hon. member had better raise this on another occasion. He will see that the schedule has been fixed. We cannot alter the schedule.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

asked if he would be in order in moving an amendment?

Yes.

said that in committee on the schedule he moved that the item purchase of land be reduced by £60,000. He was under the impression that the Government would accept that amendment, and really recommended his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill to agree with the amendment. His right hon. friend said he agreed to it He (Sir Thomas Smartt) went out of the House for a few minutes, and on coming in and hearing the division bell ringing, to his surprise found that the Government, including the Minister of Finance, were voting in favour of making it £120,000. Under these circumstances, and hoping that the House had come to a better understanding, he would now move that the vote be reduced to £60,000.

seconded the amendment.

said he hoped his hon. friend (Sir Thomas Smartt) would not press that. It may have been a bit of sharp practice, but he (Sir Thomas) was himself to blame. There was a principle involved in voting against £120,000. There was no principle lin voting against £60,000. The hon. member destroyed their chance of voting on a principle, and thus lost four or five votes on that side of the House. What was the use of repeating the division?

Is the right hon. member for Victoria West in order in saying to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that he lost the division because of a bit of sharp practice? I understood the Minister of Finance to suggest to the Minister of Lands that he accept the reduction.

Which he did.

I cannot take notice of what took place in committee.

Is the right hon. member in order in making use of this expression, which is a charge agaist this side of the House?

I did not quite catch what he said. I think it might pass. (Laughter.)

Is it a Parliamentary expression?

I did not quite catch the meaning.

The amendment was negatived.

moved that the vote be reduced by £120,000.

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

moved that the Bill be read a third time

seconded.

objected.

The motion was carried, and the Bill read a third time.

moved: To insert a new item (4), viz.: Second column: “4. Llewellyn to Franklands.”; third column: “5”; fourth column: “£30,055,” and to omit the totals.

asked if the Railway Board had reported on the line?

replied that the Board had approved of it, but he was not aware that the Board had reported on it. The line was necessitated by East Coast fever.

The schedule was agreed to.

On the second schedule,

moved: Pago 6: To omit “Second” and to substitute “Third”; in line 2 of the schedule, to omit “three” and to substitute “four”; after line 3, to insert “Natal.—Law No. 16 of 1872.—The Lands Clauses Consolidation Law, 1872. The whole.”; “Natal.—Act No. 7 of 1909.—To amend the Lands clauses Consolidation Law No. 16 of 1872 and Act No. 10 of 1899,-The whole.”; “Natal.—Act No. 21 of 1910. —To provide for the construction and maintenance of certain lines of railway.— Section eight.”

Agreed to.

On clause 1,

moved: In line 6, to omit “third” and to substitute “fourth”.

Agreed to.

moved: That the following be a new clause 2: “2. (1) The agreement entered into between the Railway Administration of the Union and the Messina (Transvaal) Development Company, Limited, and the Messina Railway Company, Limited-dated the fifteenth day of April, 1911, and set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed, and the construction and equipment by the said Administration of the line of railway described in that agreement is hereby sanctioned; (2) Section three of Act No. 10 of 1910 of the Transvaal and the Second Schedule there to shall be and are hereby repealed.” He said that the Transvaal Government entered into a contract to construct a line of railway from one point of the present proposed line to another point, which was not the one now proposed. The company tried to raise money, but failed to get it at a reasonable rate. One condition of the agreement was that the Government had the right to purchase on certain terms. The first estimate of the cost of the railway was £750,000, but afterwards it was found the cost would be £987,000. That would have been the price the Government would have had to pay under the agreement. Afterwards another route was surveyed, and it was found that a line could be constructed over this route for £747,000. A new agreement was made whereby the Government received a guarantee of 4½ per cent., and the line would be a Government line. He wanted to be perfectly frank, and say that the guarantee was good or otherwise, according to the value of the line. The reports he had had were very satisfactory indeed. The Board recommended the construction of the line. The estimated annual receipts amounted to £37,000, and the working expenses were estimated at 5s. 6d per train mile for a limited service of three trains either way per week. At the end of the period of the guarantee, the line would be payable from the traffic derived from the country through which it passed. In the opinion of the Board, the present agreement was far more favourable to the Union than the agreement originally entered into with the Transvaal Government.

said that, this was a case in which more time should be given for inquiry.; Hon. members had not had an opportunity of reading the report of the Board on the agreement. They were asked to sanction a difference in the contract sanctioned by the Transvaal in 1910, and, in the second place, they were asked to sanction a railway which was absolutely a deviation and a material alteration of the line they had sanctioned in the Transvaal.

It is an advantageous one.

said that he had his own opinion on it, and he was only speaking on behalf of the interests of the State, as a whole. In the one case they had guaranteed 2 per cent., but in the other case they raised the whole of the money, and the Messina Company gave them a guarantee that they would pay no more than 4½ per cent, on the cost of the line.

In the Transvaal they had voted for a line to pass through the low country, which was highly mineralised, but now that line was rejected, and they ran to the high veld and Bandolier Kop, through a country which was not so highly mineralised. It would be a long time before they got the through traffic to Rhodesia, because a good deal of water would have flowed to the sea before Rhodesia came into the Union. The country west of Bandolier Kop to Zand River Poort was very poor country. If the line were kept to the low country, it would open up a highly-mineralised country. He would urge upon the Minister, before he sanctioned the deviation, to have a thorough inquiry. He would suggest that a report should be obtained from the State Engineer.

raised certain technical questions in connection with the provisions of clause 2 of the agreement. He inquired if the survey had been approved and examined by the Engineer of the Government?

replied that it had. Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar), he said he had considered the matter from what he considered the purely business point of view, and had also taken the advice of the gentlemen with whom he was associated in these matters. There were two points in particular that he would mention. There was no doubt that, from an engineering point of view, this was the better line. There was also the important consideration of the saving in the cost. The matter raised by Sir George Farrar was gone into very fully. He was afraid that, he must press the proposed line

said he understood from the Minister that the Messina Company guaranteed 4½ per cent on the outlay, but in the contract he found that the company guaranteed to pay any loss on the working of the line up to a sum not exceeding 4½ per cent. on the capital. The Government might not get any interest on its capital.

We must get 4½ per cent., but we may lose it on the working expenses. (Laughter.)

(proceeding), pointing out that the ground through which originally the line was to run was largely Government ground, said that by taking that route they would be developing their own ground. He agreed with Sir George Farrar that there should be fuller inquiry before the deviation was agreed to.

said that he knew that part of the country well, and the first proposed line would go through the property of companies, whereas the present route tapped an agricultural country full of private farms which were occupied. Not a voice had been raised in avour of the old route in the Zoutpansberg; all the people had supported the construction of the line which was now proposed. They had waited for a long time for a market, and he hoped that the line would be built. He sincerely trusted that farmers would be assisted. The mines had had assistance enough.

said that he had put forward the case of the Government; the hon. member (Mr. Nicholson) had put forward the case of private interests. The hon. member said that the Government must develop its own land, it must deviate the line in order to develop private land. The Minister had said that the new survey would not be to the advantage of Delagoa Bay, but he (the speaker) would like to point out that the Pietersburg district would be developed, and traffic which formerly went to the Union ports would go to Delagoa Bay.

asked whether the Minister was not going to answer the important questions dealing with finance asked by Mr. Duncan?

said that the estimate of the Board was that they would borrow their money at per cent. If they could always Have a guarantee at 4½ per cent., as in that case, that was to pay interest on the amount borrowed, they could build railways which they could! not otherwise do. In regard to the security mentioned by Mr. Duncan, that was the case. The value of that security, in his mind, all depended on the success of the mines. The mine, if it were a success, would produce enough traffic for the line.

asked for further information concerning the financial position of the company.

replied that be was not able to give that information, but he was told that it was a very reputable company.

said that the Minister ought to be able to tell what the capital of the company was, what its assets were, and what the obligations of the company were. He also asked whether the people themselves were satisfied with the change which was to be made?

said he did not know whether the local people were satisfied, but he was told that an army of prospectors had started already. He did not care much what the assets were so long as the mine sent down the stuff which would provide traffic for the railway. He was told that the capital of the company was £250,000, and it expected to raise another £120,000.

said the company might be a financial success without sending a large quantity of material over the railway.

said all the country between Leydsdorp and Messina was mineralised. No case whatever had been made out for rushing through this agreement at the last moment of the session, and the House would be wise in postponing a decision on the matter.

thought the Minister of Finance should have made closer inquiries into the financial standing of the company. Supposing the company had £250,000 worth of debentures, it would have to pay the interest on those debentures before paying a guarantee to the Government.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 5 was amended.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved: A new schedule 3, being an agreement between the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Messina (Transvaal) Development Company, Limited, and the Messina (Transvaal) Railway Company, Limited (pp. 1,290-3, “Votes and Proceedings”).

Agreed to.

The Bill was thereupon reported.

moved a further amendment in clause 4, to provide that the Board, for the purpose of determining claims for compensation, consist of the Resident Magistrate of the district wherein it was proposed to exercise the powers in respect of which the compensation was claimed, assisted by two persons, one to be appointed by the landowner and one by the Government.

seconded.

accepted the amendment, which was agreed to.

The committee’s amendments were also agreed to.

moved the third reading.

I object.

The third reading was set down for tomorrow.

moved in the first schedule to increase the amount to £4,974,204 1s. 3d.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 1 was altered from £563,275 to £974,204.

The Bill was reported with amendment.

moved that the House, at its rising to-day, adjourn until eleven o’clock a.m.

seconded.

Agreed to.