from J. A. Liebenberg, who served under the Education Department.

from E. Maas, late teacher.

from inhabitants of Griqualand West, for railway extension to Kuruman.

from residents of Zululand, for a railway from Ginginhlovu to Eshowe.

from the Geneva Association of Hotel Employees and the Helvetia Union of Hotel Employees, praying for legislation regulating the conditions of employment by licensed victuallers.

from H. le Voy, manager of the Imperial Tobacco Company, and 38 others, manufacturers of and dealers in cigarettes, against the proposed tax on cigarettes.

from H. P. Barnett-Clarke, Clerk of the late Legislative Council of the Cape.

Amendment to regulations under the Vaccination Act, 1906 (Natal).

brought up the report of the Departmental Commission appointed to inquire into mothers in connection with co-operative wineries in the Cape Province. He moved as an unopposed motion that the report be referred to the Select Committee on Cooperative Wineries.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether he was aware that dentists who came to South Africa and possessed New Zealand diplomas were not entitled to practise in the Union; (2) whether the Government was prepared to introduce legislation providing for recognition within the Union of diplomas granted in other parts of the Empire, which reciprocally recognised diplomas granted within the Union; and (5) whether the Government would bring the whole question of reciprocity in regard to professional diplomas within the Empire before the approaching Imperial Conference?

replied that the only qualifications for dentists which were accepted in South Africa were those which were recognised by the General Medical Council in Great Britain, and New Zealand dentists were apparently not so recognised. The Government was not prepared to introduce legislation in the direction desired, nor had the question of reciprocity with regard to professional diplomas been placed on the agenda of the Imperial Conference, and therefore it was not likely to be discussed there.

asked the Minister of Justice whether the Government had received sworn statements to the effect that a trade combination was violating the Cape Colony Act, No. 15 of 1907, and if so, whether it was the intention of the Government to take action?

replied that the matter was one which was receiving, and would continue to receive, the attention of the proper authorities, but in the interests of justice it was undesirable to say what steps had been taken.

asked the Minister of Justice; (1) Whether he was aware that persons who voluntarily paid during the first week in March their poll tax due not later than February 28, had been criminally prosecuted since making such payment; (2) whether such prosecutions had taken place on his instructions; (3) if not, on whose instructions had they taken place; and (4) whether a similar stringency had been exercised since May 31 last in respect of overdue taxes in other Provinces of the Union?

I have no information as to the prosecutions that may have taken place. The Magistrates and police have authority under the law to take action on their own account for collection of arrears. The instructions to collectors allow two months for payment, and, in addition, public notice is given through the press and otherwise when it is intended to carry out an inspection of receipts in any particular town or locality, so that persons who are in arrear may have an opportunity of paying and escaping proceedings. In view of the fact that up to the end of February only £22,000 was received out of a sum of £80,000 collectable, it would not appear that any undue pressure had been exercised. Collectors were reminded that payment must be required before March 31.

asked whether there were any amounts still due to the Government from the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies, and if so, how much?

said that the information was now being obtained, but it would take a little time, arid he would therefore suggest that the question stand over for a few days.

nodded his assent.

asked what amounts were paid by the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies for: (a) The use of railway sidings at Lichtenburg, Klerksdorp, Standerton, Heidelberg, Rustenburg, and Bethal; and (b) for the storage of maize on railway property?

replied that the agreements entered into with the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies made no mention of sidings, but where sidings existed they were used free of charge by the societies in the usual way. He added that he had more information, which he was quite willing to give the hon. member if he cared to have it.

asked whether there was any ground for the alarmist statements in the public press as to the danger of the importation of sleeping sickness into the Union, and what steps were being taken to avoid such risks?

At the end of 1910 representations were made both to the Union and the Imperial Governments by the authorities of Portuguese East Africa respecting the occurrence of cases of sleeping sickness, apparently contracted locally, in parts of North-eastern Rhodesia and on the margin of Lake Nyasa, and it was urged that the several Governments involved should cooperate with a view of preventing the spread of the disease. Certain proposals were put forward by the Portuguese Colonial Government, which were considered by the Union Government, but were not regarded as being practicable or calculated; to achieve the end in view. Cases of sleeping sickness occurred in the Nyasaland Protectorate a long time ago, and the only new development recently is the discovery of cases, which cannot he roved to have been imported, in a certain area in North-eastern Rhodesia, where Glossina Palpalis, hitherto supposed to be the sole medium of infection, is said not to exist, but only the common variety known as Morsitans. Not very much is known at present by medical authorities as to whether the disease can be conveyed by the Morsitans, but in any case the danger of the introduction of the disease into the Union is remote, as the Palpalis has never been heard of south of the Zambesi, and the Morsitans, excepting perhaps in the Game Reserve and possibly in the Waterberg, does not exist in the Transvaal. Complete and efficient arrangements have been made by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association for the medical inspection of natives recruited in Nyasaland before their entry into Portuguese territory. In addition to this, the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, at the request of the Government, are making arrangements that a microscopical examination of the blood of all natives coming from the neighbourhood of infected areas shall be carried out at Johannesburg. Before committing themselves to any policy of restriction in regard to the recruitment of natives from tropical areas, the Government prefer to wait until more definite information is available as to the occurrence and cause of sleeping sickness in the districts referred to. In this connection the Imperial Government has proposed the appointment of a Scientific Commission to inquire into the matter, and the Union Government has expressed its willingness to defray one-fifth of the expenditure of the Commission, provided such proportion does not involve a liability exceeding £1,000. It may here be mentioned that as a result of the protective measures initiated by the Administration of Uganda, the deaths from sleeping sickness in that Protectorate have been reduced from 8,003 in 1905 to 975 in 1909. There is, therefore, some reason to hone that before long the progress of the disease in other parts of Africa will be arrested with the same degree of success.

asked whether the Minister would not have that interesting and reassuring reply printed?

said that he had no objection to sending it to the press for publication.

on behalf of Mr. C. J. KRIGE (Caledon) asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (a) Whether he is aware that Mr. H. C. du Plessis, whose wife and two daughters were killed in a railway accident at Caledon last week, denies the statement to the effect that he (Du Plessis) had taken full blame and responsibility for the accident; (b) if so, whether the Minister will make further inquiry into the matter?

said that the information he had communicated to the House had been received by him from the General Manager, and he had given it exactly as he had received it. Since then Mr. Krige had told him that he had been informed that the man who had sustained that irreparable loss was very much affected by the statement that he had said that he was to blame for the accident, and that he had acknowledged he was to blame. It appeared that the man had been approached shortly after the accident, and had been much distressed, and was hardly responsible for what he said; and he (Mr. Sauer) could quite believe that he said what he was reported to have said. He did not think it was ever intended to convey that there was any moral responsibility attaching to him, or any other responsibility than that.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House, it is essential that all Bills and Acts of Parliament, in the English and Dutch languages, should be identical in wording.”

seconded.

In moving this, I am sure I have the sympathy of all sides of the House. I do not think it can be said that there is no necessity for the motion. Common-sense, he said, would lead them to the conclusion that, as they were dealing with two languages, both of which had equal rights, and they did not know which version of a Bill was becoming law, for the purposes of that House and for purposes hereafter, both versions should be identical. Surely experience had told them that it was a dangerous principle to adopt to say that similar wording was not necessary; and there was no denying it that the versions which they had in the two languages very often varied materially; they were not identical in terms, and there were often insertions or omissions. One version would contain what the other did not contain, and very often they would not express the same thing. Hon. members knew that they were getting tired of trying to compare the two versions, and many of them were giving it up in despair. If they took the Census Act, in one section they had in the English version the words “powers and duties,” and one would think they were very simple words to translate; but in the Dutch version they had in the one section “machten en bevoegdheden,” but if they went lower down, they got the same expression translated as “bevoegdheden en plichten.” Then there were the differences between “may” and “shall.” The Minister of the Interior had said that the Dutch lauguage was not so imperative in its genius of expression as English. Well, he did not agree with him. They found in the Census Act that “the director shell appoint” appeared in the Dutch version as “de direkteur zal aanstellen” and “de direkteur stelt aan.” Then “the Governor-General may appoint” appeared in the Dutch version as “de Goeverneur-Generaal kan aanstellen,” “benoemd,” or “stelt aan.”

Quite right.

If that is so, then the Dutch language is so poor that it cannot draw the difference between “may” and “shall,” although that is not my opinion. The Dutch language can express the difference. It does do it. If you have one expression “shall” and another “may,” you can express them in different ways in Dutch.

You may do it.

My knowledge of Dutch tells me that you can express “shall” and “may,” and that there is no necessity for the confusion. It was, he continued, in this difference of language that confusion constantly arose. For instance, in section 9 the word “may” was translated by “kan,” and in the next sentence it was translated by “bevoegd.” In the Law Courts they had to deal with words, and if they used different terms to express the same thing, the Courts of Law would consider that they meant something else. Why use other words when they wanted to express one thing in the same way? Again, the words “and,” “or,” were differently expressed. The word “and” was a conjunctive, whereas the word “or” was a disjunctive. In one section he would like to know why the word “and” is translated by “of,” and the word “or” translated by “en.” Again, in the Census Act, under section 10, the date, March 1, when the officer was to call for the paper, was in the one version and not in the other. In the High Commissioner’s Bill, again, the salary was put down at £3,000 per year. In the Dutch version the words “per year” were left out altogether. Then there was considerable difference in the meaning in the Powers and Privileges Bill. They had the word “compensation” translated as “Sohadeloos-stelling ”; but the word really meant “indemnity.” He believed a solution of the difficulty would be that if anybody found he could express himself better in English, then they should have a Dutch translation of the English version; and if it were better for a man to express himself in Dutch, then there could be an English translation. It had been suggested by a distinguished member of Parliament to deal with the matter by the rules of the House. Let the Bill be read a first time in one Language, and then before the second reading let it be translated either into English or Dutch. Then they could rely upon one version being the same as the other. He was sure they would find no difficulty in pursuing this course. That was their experience in the old Cape Colony. It was essential in the interests of the country that these two versions should be identical.

asked whether the hon. member could not repeat what he had just said in the Dutch language?

said he was pleased that the hon. member had introduced the question, because the way in which he had dealt with the matter was more creditable to the House than remarks of a similar nature, on other occasions, had been. In the past, when hon. members had criticised translations, they had conveyed to him (the speaker) the impression that they were animated not so much by the desire to facilitate the business of the House as by malice. He admitted that errors had crept into the translation of documents, but that was only natural. Whatever method they adopted, mistakes were sure to happen, because even Homer sometimes nodded. He trusted the number of discrepancies and omissions would be smaller in future. They should be fair, however, to the officials concerned. The bulk of legislation had been drafted after the elections, and there were only two Parliamentary draughtsmen—one Englishman and one official—to look after the Dutch versions. They were overwhelmed with work, and the relatively small number of errors was really astounding. Printers, too, were responsible for a number of mistakes. The originals of Bills were sent out by his department to other departments for their perusal, the heads of which would most likely introduce amendments, but in the one language only. The copy in which words had been altered would not be returned to the Law Department; consequently, the translation was not corrected. Most of the mistakes would have been avoided had the department been able to entrust all its work to one draughtsman, who was equally at home in English and Dutch. Unfortunately, they did not possess such an official. Parliament itself was partly responsible for incorrect translations, because amendments moved in the House were translated in so slipshod a fashion that he had been obliged to move, at a subsequent stage, for the amendments to be amended once again. Opportunity was not always given for that, however, and amendments had to be printed. Now, only those who were familiar with the work turned out by printing establishments knew the trouble involved in keeping Dutch printed matter tolerably free from errors. He did not expect printers to adapt themselves immediately to the wants of Parliament, and the mover should have kept that in mind. He repeated that he recognised the number of errors to have been in excess of what it was likely to be in normal circumstances. The hon. member for the Harbour Division had introduced an extremely comical resolution, in fact, he did not understand how it was possible that the hon. member could have drafted a motion of that description. He could only account for it by assuming that the hon. member knew too little Dutch to realise the extent to which its idiom differed from English idiom. It was nonsensical to talk of “identical translations.” He proceeded to give an “identical” translation of the motion from Dutch into English. (Laughter.) Sentences were not constructed in the same way; the “identical” idea could not, therefore, be carried out in that direction. Did not the hon. member know that an “identical” translation of a given word into another language often conveyed an entirely different meaning? If he did know, what did he mean by using the word “identical”? The hon. member had criticised the translation of “powers and duties” by “machten en bevoegdheden” because it should have been “machten en plichten,” according to the hon. the mover. But who was to say that the translation in question was not due to amendments made in the House—possibly moved by the hon. member himself? That only proved how easily ignorance could lead to a confusion of ideas. In translating Bills one had to take into account the recognised legal phraseology of the Dutch language. “Identical” translations would produce nothing but nonsense and ambiguity. A translation should be identical with its original in the meaning it conveyed, but not as far as the phraseology was concerned. The hon. member had really pointed out a few errors in translation, but courts of law had decided more than once that “and” could be used in another than a conjunctive sense. He would now deal with the Powers and Privileges Bill.

pointed out that the Minister could not quote from the report on a Bill which had not yet come back † from another place.

repeated that, though the sense should be identical, the wording could not. He admitted that his knowledge of English was inferior to that possessed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, but he did know a little more about the Dutch language, and his opinion was that the translations supplied were as efficient as could be obtained in South Africa. They should, therefore, abstain from what looked like captious criticism. They should remember the difficult circumstances in which the work had been done, and continue to act in the spirit which had prompted them to pass the amendments ne had had to move from time to time. They should not take exception to terms which, though they might be unfamiliar to South Africans, were nothing but correct Dutch.

said that it was a pity that the Minister of Justice was so very suspicious, and seemed to think that the hon. member who had moved that motion had done so as a personal attack. The motion had been moved, not to find fault with hard-working officials, but to draw attention to the errors which had crept into the two versions of Bills. He (Mr. Botha) had tried to improve the Dutch version of Bills and moved amendments where he considered that errors had crept in. It seemed, however, as if the Minister took that as a personal insult, but that had not been his (Mr. Botha’s) intention at all, and he loved his mother tongue as much as anyone else. What was wanted was that the translations should be literal, which did not mean that they should neglect to consider grammar or idiom of the language into which they wore translating. It was quite possible to have a correct literal translation, and good grammar, syntax, and style as well. There were certain phrases in the Dutch versions which were certainly good high Dutch, but were not familiar to Dutch South Africans as a whole. The Minister of Justice seemed to convey that he was the sole champion of the Dutch language; but he (Mr. Botha) thought if he were not there and five thousand others were not there, the Dutch language would continue to live in South Africa as it was living now.

said he regarded this as a matter of the greatest importance (Hear, hear.) He wished to say at once that he did not by any means altogether agree with the attitude adopted towards the motion by his hon. friend on his right (General Hertzog) —(cheers)—and his hon. friend knew that he disagreed. One felt at once—and he was sure the hon. member would also see—that this motion, as it stood, was not perhaps very happily worded. (Hear, hear.) The object of the motion, however, was to obtain an, identity, as near as possible, between the English version and the Dutch version of a Bill. That was an absolutely irrefutable and sound proposition. (Hear, hear.) He was sure his hon. friend, and every member of the House would acquit him of any desire at all to throw cold water upon, or in any sense whatever to derogate or detract from, the use of the Dutch language. (Hear, hear.) He loved the Dutch language—(hear, hear)—and particularly, if he might say so, he loved their own version of it in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) But to him—he had studied it from his youth upwards, written it, read it, and spoken it—it was not simply because he was anxious that in their legislation, the legislation of this Union Parliament, that justice should be done to both of these languages, which they had adopted as their own, but he felt the importance of this motion in its real moaning, which the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had placed before the House. They were about to frame legislation in both these languages, and they were framing this legislation, not far to-day or to-morrow, but for future years, and every man who practised his profession and who knew what was going to happen in the future, knew the difficulties of judicial interpretation in matters of this kind, where they had the official version saying one thing and the other version saying another. Not only was there that difficulty, but it was a difficulty which was placed upon the community at large, one section of it reading the Dutch version and the other section reading another version having essential differences of meaning. He did not speak of identity of wording, literal identity, or anything of that sort, because that was a practical impossibility to attain, but he spoke of identity of meaning so far as it was possible to embrace that in these two languages, and unless they did attempt to achieve identity of meaning, they were going to lay up a store for the future of endless difficulties in regard to the interpretation of their Ordinances. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that the wording did not matter very much, that they could not expect literal identity, and that what one expected to get at was the soul of the thing. He entirely agreed that the soul of the thing was what they wanted, but courts of justice, at great expense to litigants, were engaged days and days, owing to faulty drafting and things of that sort, in endeavouring to find out the soul of the thing, what the intention was, what the meaning was. There was no doubt if in a Bill they adopted one word, if they used in an English Bill throughout the word “jurisdiction,” they should adopt one good Dutch word that meant jurisdiction, and use for that word “jurisdiction” throughout their Dutch version of the Bill the same word. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the illustration of “and” and “or,” he thought that there they had got a specific, substantial, and essential difference of meaning. It was a very important difference of meaning, and it might make all the difference in the world. He rather feared that there had been hitherto an idea that the question of translation was not the true test to adopt, and that, by some sort of curious process, which he himself could not grasp, or understand, there should be presented to Parliament two independent originals. To some extent the feeling might be that one language might run the risk of being neglected in favour of the other, but he wanted to say this, that, to his mind, there was only one safe and true course to adopt, and it was a course which would not affect the dignity of either of the official languages. It was open to any member of the House, whether he be a Minister of the Crown or a private member, to introduce a Bill into the House in either of the official languages. He might introduce his Bill in English or in Dutch. Well, that was a fair principle, but once he had introduced his Bill’ in one language, whether it be English or Dutch, then he mantained that for the sake of the work they did, and the effects of that work, there should be made an accurate translation of that measure. It was possible to translate accurately, with style and with dignity, and the point he wished to commend to the House was that, with a view to maintaining the dignity of both languages, they should adopt the only lines it was possible to adopt, namely, that they should adhere to the principle of introducing Bills in one or other of the official languages, and when they had been introduced, they must have accurate translations, and not independent originals. He was sorry to disagree with his hon. friend (General Hertzog), and his sympathy was with the motion of the hon. member opposite (Sir Henry Juta), if he would only change it so as to make it mean identity of meaning. Personally, as far as he was concerned, he would vote for it.

said that if one translated absolutely word for word, the result would be nonsense. The Dutch version of Bills was excellent, so much so, in fact, that he thought it was too high for Sir Henry Juta. He did not think it right for the officials to be criticised, because the translation was as good as it could be. The hon. the mover and the Minister of Native Affairs hardly knew enough Dutch to be able to pronounce an authoritative opinion on matters of that nature.

complimented the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Burton) upon his admirable speech. When a Bill was introduced, it was essential that both versions should be exactly the same in their meaning. If necessary, a Bill could be introduced in Dutch, but they wanted both versions to agree. The hon. member pointed out several discrepancies in the two versions of several Bills. It was necessary that this matter should be brought before the House. He hoped these independent versions would be dropped, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour’s motion adopted.

said he thought they were simply flogging a dead horse. The idea of the motion, he believed, was that the versions should give expression to the same meaning. The rush and hurry consequent upon getting these Bills out had been responsible for the discrepancies. He moved to delete the words, “be identical in wording,” for the purpose of inserting, “give expression to the same meaning.”

seconded.

said he could assure the Minister of Justice that there was in this matter no intention of making a personal attack on him. The question under consideration was of the greatest importance to the House and the country. It was the bound en duty of the House to see that all Acts of Parliament in both languages were worded in such a way that both sections of the people understood them, and that there should be no possibility of misunderstanding. He was pleased to hear the speech of the Minister of Native Affairs, because he (Sir Thomas) thought that what Mr. Burton had said expressed practically entire concurrence with the views of Sir H. Juta. They could not get away from the fact that the Minister of Justice was really the Minister who dealt with this matter, and he (Sir Thomas) wished to know if General Hertzog spoke for the Cabinet.

The hon. member for Somerset does. (Laughter.)

said he could quite understand that with the pressure of work and the large amount of legislation the translators had great difficulties to contend with, but he understood the Minister of Justice to say, on a previous occasion, that he wanted Bills to be originals in both languages. That was what had led to all the trouble, for they could not have two original Bills. If a member introduced a Bill in one language it ought to be translated into the other, so that for all practical purposes the two versions would be identical both in wording and meaning. He could not follow the argument of the Minister of Justice that a great deal of the difficulty was due to the printing, for the Cape Parliament had Bills in both languages, and no difficulty ever arose. In that House they had the Votes and Proceedings in both languages, and no difficulty had occurred. If the work wore put into the hands of the officers of the House there would be no possibility of misunderstanding. In the case of litigation arising it would be most important to the people concerned to know whether the English or Dutch version of an Act had been signed by the Governor-General. He hoped the position taken up by the Government would be that adopted by Mr. Burton, because he (Sir Thomas) believed the question should be approached on a non-party basis. (Cheers.) It was a business matter, and the best possible solution of a very difficult question should be reached, otherwise the question would be raised that it was impossible to carry on the Legislature in the two languages, as laid down in the Constitution, which he believed no one in that House had any desire to depart from in any jot or tittle. (Cheers.)

said that he had no objection to the translations on the score of the correctness of the Dutch, but many phrases and words were employed which, although they might be well understood in Holland, were not so well understood by Dutch South Africans in the country districts.

moved as an amendment to delete “wording” and substitute “meaning. ’ ’

seconded.

supported Dr. Haggar’s amendment. It had been shown that mistakes had occurred in the past, he said, and the question was what was the best measure to adopt to avoid them in future. At the moment the best solution which occurred to his mind was that there should be a Standing Committee consisting of the best bilingualists in the House to go through the Bills.

said he was prepared to withdraw his amendment in favour of that moved by Dir. Haggar.

said he also was prepared to accept the amendment. [Proceeding, in reply to the debate, the hon. member said he did not intend to follow General Hertzog in the tone adopted by him. It was no use, when a member brought forward a motion which he believed was in the interests of the country, and which he knew was supported by almost every hon. member—it was idle, then, for the Minister of Justice to attempt to heap abuse, to talk of ignorance, and absurdity, and ridiculous nonsense. After the speech made by the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Burton), he (Sir Henry) thought the absurdity, the ridiculous nonsense, and the ignorance was not on his (Sir Henry’s) side. It was useless, too, to blame hard-worked officials or printers if things went wrong in this way. The responsibility belonged to the Minister who introduced a Bill. If the Minister thought there was too much work before the House, then the remedy was not to bring forward so much work. There were so many Bills before them that it was almost impossible for hon. members in the time at their disposal to read them in one language. However, he had attained the object for which he brought the motion forward, which was that, no matter what language they used, they should have, as far as possible, identity of meaning, and, he hoped, literal translation. He (Sir Henry) had never said a single word about the Dutch language. He was becoming quite used to this—that whenever one said anything that could, by any ingenuity, or want of ingenuity, be twisted by General Hertzog into an attack on the Dutch language, he did so twist it. He (Sir Henry) had said nothing about the quality of Dutch used; he had only said that when they used a Dutch word twice they should keep on using it when they had the same meaning to express. Hon. members on the Government side of the House had complained that General Hertzog’s Dutch was so high that they could not understand it: it was not be (Sir Henry) who complained. If the Minister had not been sitting in a little cave of his own, he would know that it was a common complaint that he used language which the people accustomed to the Dutch of this country could not follow. The object of the motion had been achieved, and he trusted that in future their Bills and Acts of Parliament would be so identical in wording that there would be no difficulty at all when it came to the interpretation of any Act, whether it were in one language or the other, to ascertain what was the intention of the Legislature. (Hear, hoar.)

said he desired to explain that when he spoke on this matter he did not regard the motion as an attack on the language, or as in any sense a personal question. He was sorry if the hon. and learned member (Sir Henry Juta) had understood his remarks in that Light.

said that in reference to the question as to which should be the copy of a Bill to be signed by the Governor-General, he thought it should be dearly stated when a Bill was introduced, and that they might take the different versions alternately— first in English and then in Dutch.

It was agreed that the word “meaning” should be substituted in the motion for “wording.”

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

moved for a return setting forth the names of the various newspapers, and the amounts paid to them by the Government, respectively, for advertising and printing, from June 1, 1910, to December 31, 1910.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for a return of all commissioned officers now serving in the various forces of the Union, giving: (1) The date of first appointment in the various South African services; (2) the date of present appointment and rate of pay with further particulars as to: (a) whether transferred from, the Imperial or Colonial Service; (b) whether transferred with pension rights; and (c) the date of the first appointment in the Imperial or Colonial service.

seconded.

said that he was willing to give his hon. friend the information, only he was by no means clear what information he wanted.

said that he would draft the motion afresh, and move it in a more explicit form. He therefore proposed, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the motion.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved that the petitions from Lawrence F. McDowell and (370 other residents of Calitzdorp, H W. Becker and 114 other inhabitants of Ladismith, and P. D. Smith and 119 other inhabitants of Barrydale, praying for railway communication between Oudtshoorn, Calitzdorp, Ladismith, Barydale, and Montagu, or for other relief, presented to the House on February 21, 1911, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

said he was sorry that the Minister of Railways was not in the House. Since 1086 they had been agitating for railways in those parts. They had had several surveys, but had got no farther. The time had arrived, he claimed, when the Government should give their serious consideration to railway development in that part of the country. He might mention that, during the past eight years, the Divisional Council valuation of the area concerned had increased from £463,000 to close upon £2,000,000. It was quite impossible for farmers to go in for large irrigation works until they had got a cheaper mode of transport. Farmers who lived from 60 to 70 miles from the railway were seriously handicapped. He compared the districts of Oudtshoorn and Ladismith, pointing out that the farmers in the former district had an enormous advantage over the farmers of the latter district, by reason of having better railway facilities. A bag of mealies at Ladismith, for instance, cost 5s. 6d. more than it cost at Oudtshoorn. In every way the people in the Ladismith district had been very seriously handicapped. They had made enormous strides, but still greater strides would be made if they had railway communication. At the present time they had only got about 15 per cent, of the irrigable land under cultivation. He hoped the Government would take the matter into serious consideration.

said that the hon. member had not exaggerated the disabilities under which the Ladismith people laboured. They were desirous of developing the district, which was very fertile, but they were seriously handicapped at the present time. Reference had been made to a survey which was, he understood, made some two years ago, of a line from Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp. The distance was only 26 miles, and the district was level and very fertile. The estimated cost was only about £4,000 per mile. Well, the people of Ladismith did not expect to get a line to Ladismith at once, and he was sure they would be satisfied if the line from Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp were constructed. The total cost would be £150,000, and the interest would only be £6,000, and he predicted that the line would be self-supporting in a very short period.

advocated the extension of the railway from Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp. The country was level, construction would be cheap, and the line would pay well. Oudtshoorn, at present, paid no more for mealies that were carried a distance of 80C miles than Ladismith did for a matter of 36 miles.

said the Minister had promised “favourable consideration” when he (the speaker) moved a similar resolution in 1910. The district in question was extremely fertile, and he strongly supported the motion.

in the absence of the Minister of Railways, said that the Government would be very glad to take this matter into consideration. No doubt it was a matter of very great importance to the valuable and fertile districts referred to. From what he had seen of them, he was convinced that there was no part of South Africa which required opening up by railway communication more than they did. The Government would take the matter into very serious consideration, but it was quite impossible to make a promise.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Government be requested to institute an inquiry during the recess into the rates of quitrent at present levied on farms in the North-western districts, with a view to the equalisation of the burdens on pastoralists.

seconded.

said he moved this at the urgent request of several of his constituents. They would recollect that some time ago they appointed a Commission, but some cases were not brought to their notice. Some of them paid very high prices for the land, some in fact paid £5,000 and over, and as they had to pay 1 per cent, interest it was out of all proportion to the charges in other parts of Cape Colony, and far more than was paid in other parts of South Africa. He did not want any Commission, but what he would ask for would be for some responsible man, and he could indicate one or two suitable men, to go round land report upon these matters. This would have a very settling effect. He did not want to make an attack upon the Treasury, but they wanted this done. These people had settled in the country. They had had to experience untold hardships, disease, drought, and other disabilities, and certainly something should be done, seeing that something like a million of money had been spent in the district. He had been asked by one or two hon. members to make the Bill general, but he did not wish to do that.

I would suggest to the right hon. member that the wording be altered so as to read: “That the Government be requested to take into consideration the advisability of instituting an inquiry,” etc.

moved am amendment to the motion to insert the words “Eastern and Western Bechuanaland” after the word “districts.” Unless a Commission were appointed, the matter would be simply referred to the Magistrates, and they knew what the result would be if that were done. The time had come when there must be some uniformity in this quitrent. A good many farmers in the district he represented were unable to pay these heavy impositions from year to year. This Commission need not be very expensive, but it should include a farmer who understood the subject.

moved a further amendment to omit the words “North-western districts” for the purpose of inserting “Province of the Cape of Good Hope.”

seconded.

said the old Governments of the Cape looked around for the best way of making money, not for the best way of helping the farmers. He hoped that the Union Government would now come to their assistance, because excessive valuations had been made at a time when wood fetched up to £25 a load on the Kimberley market. At present it fetched £3.

asked whether the motion could not be altered so as to include the whole of the Union? He agreed with his hon. friends that very much was paid in Griqualand; and he thought an investigation should be made into the whole matter, so as to place it on one basis. He moved that the words “North-western districts” be deleted, for the purpose of inserting “Union of South Africa.”

seconded.

asked his hon. friends to be careful in their amendments, otherwise they would break the thing down. The difference in this motion between the Cape and other parts of South Africa was that in the Cape, particularly in the North-west, all lands were disposed of under the quitrent system. In the cases which he had in new, the people had the land leased to them, and then they had to make a private bargain with Government, the land being sold at a minimum of 16 years’ purchase, with the consequence that many of the people paid too much for their land. Above all that, they had to pay quitrent. These were the cases he had in view. If they were going to make quitrents uniform throughout South Africa they would have to begin very near home; they could never contemplate that for a moment. He would not counsel doing that at the present time, because land had gone up in value very much indeed in the Cape, and some people had made good bargains, but others had their bargains made for them by Government.

said that he would like to support Mr. Van Heerden’s amendment. In the Eastern Province the amounts varied considerably. In some cases they were excessive.

said that the matter of high quitrent had been a long-standing grievance with them in the North-west; and if the Minister of Lands went into the matter, he would see how reasonable was Mr. Merriman’s motion. The matter could, he thought, safely be left in Mr. Fischer’s hands. He opposed the amendments because a special set of circumstances prevailed in the North-west.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock to make the inquiry applicable to the whole Province. There were cases in other parts in which an inquiry was highly desirable. He thought the present machinery at the disposal of the Government would be sufficient.

supported the amendment. He thought the inquiry might be extended to the whole of the Union.

said that in November last the same matter was brought forward, and he promised then that he would consider the matter after Parliament was over. That promise he now repeated, because he quite thought there were anomalies which required looking into. He would suggest, however, that it should be left to the Government to appoint a Commission if necessary, or, better still, to appoint a Commissioner. That would obviate the publication of a big volume, and it could be done more expeditiously and economically. He did not think that there was need to extend the inquiry throughout the Union, as one of the Free State members had suggested. Reductions had been made in quitrents, and he did not think the Government was prepared to reduce them below 2s. a hundred morgen.

said that if they were going to have a general inquiry and allowed a Commission or Commissions to go wherever people thought the quitrents were too high, it would take fifty years before the inquiry was finished. Now the position was that Lands were granted on a certain basis. In numbers of cases the land had changed hands, and the purchasers had paid prices calculated on a high quitrent. Now they came to Parliament and asked Parliament to knock off the quitrent, and give them a handsome profit. Then, many cases had occurred in which the land had been bought by speculators. It was a very dangerous thing for Parliament to interfere with contracts after they had been once made. He did not think the House would ever refuse to listen to a genuine case of hardship, but to have a roving Commission of this sort would be highly dangerous.

said he was the last person in the world to want a roving Commission to change people’s bargains with the State, but there were certain cases of individual hardship which should be inquired into. He was satisfied with the explanation of the Minister. He would be prepared to withdraw the motion, leaving the matter in the bands of the Minister.

The motion and the several amendments were withdrawn.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that provision should be made on mining areas or in the neighbourhood thereof for small holdings for purposes of dwellings for bona fide workers on the mines, and that the Government be requested to consider the advisability of introducing legislation providing for the acquisition of the necessary ground and for facilitating the erection of buildings.” He said he was sure that the motion would receive the sympathy of both sides of the House. He hoped, however, to have from the Government a promise of practical assistance for a very deserving class of the community in order to supply what was a most urgent need. One of the great questions in regard to the conditions of workers on the Witwatersrand was the cost of living. The chief factor in that question was the rent of houses. He wanted to enable these men to acquire houses and small holdings for themselves. He desired by this motion to benefit three classes. The first was the workman who had his family overseas. It was not a good thing for the State or the individuals concerned that workmen should have their families in other parts of the world. The second class was the Colonial-born white people, who were flocking in increasing numbers to the Witwatersrand for work. These people, who were of the poorer classes, were at the present moment, a great many of them, compelled to live in huts, through want of (accommodation on the mines. Another class for whom he specially appealed were the unfortunate victims of miners’ phthisis. He was not proposing anything revolutionary or new. They had the precedent of other countries, even of this country. In the Transvaal, for instance, a land bank for the help of farmers on certain security was founded. New Zealand and all the States of Australia had already done what he was asking the Union Government to do. He went on to refer to the small holdings which had been established, in Natal, and said that they had got plenty of ground around the industrial centres of the Transvaal for that purpose, and there was a market for any articles the settlers might produce. He asked for an assurance from the Government that during the recess they would appoint a Commission to go into the whole question of closer settlement, only the fringe of which was dealt with in his motion.

seconded the motion. One of the Ministers told them that these workers were not desirable immigrants, because they came here, not with the intention of making this their home, but simply to make money and go away. The fact was that there were too few attractions in this country for these workers to think of it as their permanent home. (Hear, hear.) The ordinary house rent was about £8 per month. Of course, he knew that the mines had excellent married quarters, which he believed could be obtained for £3 10s. These mine cottages, however, were limited in number, and besides a man did not always want to pay rent to an employer, but rather to be in a position to sell his labour to whatever employer he liked. There were men also who built their own homes, and these men were one of the most valuable assets to the country. He wanted to lay stress upon the necessity for the introduction of some such legislation as they had in Australia. In the South Australia Workmen’s Habitation Law the workers were helped not only to buy their land, but to build their houses. In considering the land around the great mining areas he would point out to the Hon. the Minister that he could see huge areas thoroughly adapted to this suggestion.

said he thought there was a great deal in the suggestion, and one that the Minister might well study during the recess. So far they had had no serious experiments with regard to closer settlement, or in the matter of providing suitable dwellings for workmen The idea was not simply to provide land upon which houses could be built, but to provide a few acres with each cottage that could be cultivated. It was impossible to say how many men would avail themselves of the opportunity, but the suggestion was worthy of consideration, and of some attempt to bring about a condition of affairs that would make this industrial population continue in the country. Their duty was to make these people realise that they were part of the South African community, and it might be necessary to give some sort of stimulus. If the Government would take in hand the development of a section on what was known as the “half” system, and out it up into small holdings, that would go a long way to solve the problem. It might involve an expenditure of £10,000 or £12,000, and the cutting up of the land would give people a chance of making a living out of their holdings. The land could be near a railway. If some experiment of this kind were made they would be able to look forward the sooner to having a larger permanent population on the land. The people should also be given an opportunity of building their own houses. He believed that there would be plenty of applicants, and that small men would be encouraged to settle on the land. He was not now referring to the poor white question, which would have to be dealt with in a different way, say, on lines similar to those adopted at the Kakamas settlement.

said one of the practical advantages of the proposal was this. A very large amount of money was sent away across the water by the miners. If that money could be kept in the country it would be a great benefit. He found that men from overseas were anxious to settle in this country if given suitable opportunity. The gold-mining companies could not go on building houses for ever; his firm had recently completed 84, and for these there were 250 applicants.

said that he quite agreed with what had been said about giving a man a piece of ground which he could cultivate. Kakamas had been alluded to in the course of the discussion, but the system there was altogether different to that proposed in the motion, and the class of people who received assistance at Kakamas were poor whites, and only received £1 a month at first. At present they got 3s. a day. Purchasing property on the Rand was a different matter, for ground was very expensive there, and he could not support the motion as it stood. At Kakamas the inhabitants were under a certain discipline, but nothing of that kind was proposed in connection with these workmen’s townships. The motion would involve an expenditure of about £1,000,000, and he could not support it.

said that under the last Gold Law in the Transvaal, provision was made that the surface rights of all ground held under mining title should be vested in the Crown. The State took over those surface rights, and he had understood that the object in doing so was that the Government would have an opportunity of using the land for some such purpose as was indicated in this motion. Then the Government went further, and took powers to lay out townships on this land. So far, the Government had not exercised those powers. He took it that one of the objects of the motion was that the Government should act on those powers. He hoped that if that were done, due regard would be paid to providing not only dwelling-houses, hut also a sufficient area around the dwellings to enable the people to cultivate. It might be argued that such action might prejudice the interests of those people who were holding land, and intended to use it for speculative purposes. Well, he had no sympathy for such people, and he hoped that that idea would not deter the Government.

who rose amid cries of “Vote,” said that he would always favour the Government giving working men dwellings at a cheaper rate, but to rob others of their property would not do. There was ample room on the Rand, but Government would have to be careful in purchasing ground, because people living near the mines were complaining about shocks, caused by explosions underground. He thought the interests concerning which the previous speaker discoursed in so airy a fashion were protected by special enactment. One way of assisting householders would be for the Government to cause local taxation to be reduced.

said that an explanation had not yet been given as to who were bona fide and who were mala fide mine workers. Where was the line to be drawn? Was the Government to come to the assistance of the mines to purchase property for the benefit of a certain section? Before he could vote for the motion, he must have further information. In the case of labour colonies, people were assisted who were helpless and poverty stricken; but in the present instance the idea was to assist those who already had a livelihood. If the Government could spare money to purchase such property, it would be better to come to the assistance of the bona fide poor. He thought that if the matter were gone into it would be found that there were many places where labour colonies could be started.

said that there was no intention in this motion to set up a rival agricultural community. He would like to know if the Minister intended to reply.

The hon. member must address the House.

said that they were deeply indebted to the hon. member who had brought forward this motion. He said that the houses erected by the group with which Sir George Farrar was associated had been taken up with avidity. There was keen competition for the houses, and the readiness with which they were taken up showed the desire that the men had of becoming proprietors of little properties of their own. Continuing, he said that the district of Benoni was peculiarly well adapted to a scheme of this sort. He hoped that the Ministry would accept the scheme and carry it on to fruition.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

appealed to General Lemmer to withdraw. If the motion were put off now, there was little prospect of it being reached again.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was carried, and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow (Wednesday) week.