from K. A. H. Houghton, principal of the Loved ale A.L. Public Native School.

from S. W. Gillespie, clerk. South African Railways.

from O. W. Freemantle, of Alice, who, after 15 years’ service was retired permanently disabled.

from John Clench, formerly a blacksmith, South African Railways.

General C. F. BEYERS (Pretoria District, South), from the Dutch Reformed Church Presbytery, Lydenburg, praying that the Solemnisation of Marriages Bill be so amended as to prohibit marriage between a widow and her deceased husband’s brother, etc., etc.

thought this rather an inconvenient practice, for the figures would not be discussed as they appeared in the Estimates. The usual practice was to introduce Supplementary Estimates.

Does the hon. member object?

No; I don’t want to object.

The motions were agreed to.

brought up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the tariff of stamp duties. (See pp. 1079 to 1084 of the “Votes and Proceedings”.)

moved: That the report be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

That the resolution be adopted.

Agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft a Bill to give effect to the resolution.

brought up the report of the committee, submitting a Bill.

brought up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on tax on cigarettes,

moved: That the report be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

put the question: That the resolution be adopted.

Agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft a Bill to give effect to the resolution.

brought up the report of the committee, submitting a Bill.

as Chairman, brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows: Your committee, having considered the subject matter of the Floating Debt and Public Works Loan Bill, referred to them, beg to submit an amended Bill, in accordance with the leave granted by the House on the 6th instant. Your committee further desire to state that in the absence of details of the sum mentioned in the third schedule of the original Bill, they express no opinion thereon.

H. C. HULL, Chairman.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 7th April, 1911.

Assignment of commonages for holders of arable lots at Embokotwa and Qubenxa, Elliot, Tembuland; application for lease of portion of foreshore at Moessel Bay, for whalery purposes.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Land.

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

seconded.

Replying to Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort, Beaufort),

said that the intention was to sit in the morning from 10 to 1, and in the afternoon from 2 to 6.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that on and after Tuesday, the 11th inst., the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m., and resume at 8 o’clock p.m., also on Tuesdays, and that Government business have precedence at 8 o’clock p.m. on such days.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that sessional standing order, adopted on March 27, relating to the consideration of the Estimates of Expenditure during evening sittings shill apply to Tuesdays, and that on the conclusion of the consideration of the Estimates the said sessional standing order shall on such days, mutatis mutandis, apply to Government business.

seconded.

asked if the Prime Minister could give the House some idea as to when he hoped Parliament would rise?

It is very difficult for me. To say when the House will rise. I can only say this, that we are taking Saturday and Tuesday night, so. As to assist us to get through the work. There are a number of very important Bills which have to be dealt with, but it is the intention not to keep the House any longer than is absolutely necessary. As soon as we have dealt with the necessary business, we intend to rise, but it is impossible to say when this will be. Therefore it is impossible to give a fixed date as yet, but if my hon. friend will assist the Government by getting the hon. members of the Opposition to accelerate the debate, this would do much good. (Laughter.) I also appeal to my hon. friends on this side of the House not to indulge in long and unnecessary debates. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) If we had the co-operation of both sides of the House to get through the work without unnecessary delay, then there would be a chance of us getting home this month. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the committee recommends the grants, leases of lands, etc. (See p.p. 1087-8, “Votes and Proceedings.”)

On item No. 15, lease of fishing sites on farm Otterdam, Lambert’s Bay,

asked whether the Government were going on with the sale of sites in the village? He expressed a hope that certain land would be retained, to be used by the Government later on, and that they were not going to give a monopoly of the foreshore to any party.

was understood to reply that there was no risk of such a thing. He also added that they were going on with the sales.

The item was agreed to.

The recommendations were agreed to.

The Chairman will bring up the report to-morrow (Saturday.)

resumed the debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways for the year ending March 31, 1912. He said that when the debate was adjourned on the previous day he was endeavouring to explain to the House his views on the subject of depreciation in connection with a large item which appeared in the Estimates. As regarded the railway portion of the Estimates, a rum of £1,903,000 for depreciation was shown as a charge against the revenue of the coming year. He had an opportunity of explaining, when the first Union Railway Budget was introduced, that, depreciation, in the form in which it was now presented to the House in these Estimates, was a new feature in railway matters. In point of fact, if hon. members searched the accounts of all commercial railways, and even Colonial railways elsewhere, they would not find any reference to the subject of depreciation. The sum of £1,003,000, to which he had referred, was divided into two parts. The first sum was £307,367, which was allocated to permanent way and works, and, as he pointed out, there was an extraordinary note to this item, to the effect that the amount which should be provided at full annual rates was £726,709. He could not quite follow that note, because he did not know what was intended to be conveyed by the words, “full annual rates,” unless there was some method of computation which the Railway Board had adopted for the purpose of arriving at the sum to be fixed for depreciation, of which he was not aware.

Yes.

It is evident that the policy of the Railway Board is that a sum Should be charged each year against the revenue of the railways in respect of depreciation. Now (he proceeded), if that were the case, the Railway Board intended to take out of revenue every year a very large sum, when they were warned that this £307,000 should really be £726,709. So far as the ordinary works of the railways were concerned, namely, the permanent way and works, they did not depreciate to any extent, if properly maintained. Embankments and cuttings and all that class of work, which cost so much money and represented the largest part of the cost of construction, did not depreciate, but really appreciated, as years went on. The second item was £695,777, which was debited in respect of rolling-stock. He did not know if the Minister could give any explanation of that vote. Indeed, he (the speaker) was somewhat surprised that whilst enlarging upon many points, the Minister had paid comparatively small attention to these enormous sums of money. He thought the House required a good deal of information about these enormous sums being taken out of the revenue of the railways every year, and placed under the account for depreciation and betterment. As regarded the rolling-stock, he could not understand how rolling-stock, which was fully maintained, could depreciate during a single year to the extent of £695,777. They had a very large amount of rolling-stock, some of which, he admitted, had been running for 20 or 30 years, but it was likely to run for many years to come. In the matter of harbours, he also noticed the depreciation was to be a charge against revenue to the extent of £182,691. Between the railways and harbours, for better or for worse, they were to defray out of revenue during the corning year the sum of £1,185,000. Hon. members would recollect that during the debate on the first Budget the sum of £938,000 was taken for depreciation. That meant that in 22 months from the start of Union they would have paid out of revenue, according to the Estimates, on behalf of depreciation, the sum of £2,124,466. He should like to refer to another large amount which was placed under the head of betterment. On railways and harbours they were asked to vote £550,000 for betterment. That was, no doubt, for improvements in one way and another, and which, no doubt, would increase the value of the property and save posterity considerable expense. The sum of £750,000 had already been voted on account of betterment, and consequently these two items alone, depreciation and betterment, brought up the total to the large sum of £3,424,000. He would like to call the attention of the House to this fact—and it was one which should be kept steadily in view—that out of current revenue they were going to contribute, if they carried out the Ministerial programme, at the rate of £155,000 per month for the purpose of creating a depreciation fund, because he presumed that was what, was meant, and of increasing the value of their property. When one considered that one could easily see that it would not benefit to any considerable extent the present generation, but would increase the value of the property for those who were to follow. If they went on in this fashion, if they carried out this policy, they would have paid for the whole of the railway system, which now stood at the value of £75,000,000, in about 40 years’ time, and posterity would, no doubt, if they had any sense of justice, thank them for what they had done, but it seemed to him that they were doing for posterity a great deal more than posterity would ever do for them. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to refer to section 128 of the South Africa Act: “Notwithstanding anything stated in the preceding section, the Board may establish a fund out of railway and harbour revenue, to be used for maintaining, as far as may be, the uniformity of rates notwithstanding fluctuation. …” He had, he might say, endeavoured with his limited capacity to understand that paragraph, and had not yet arrived at a solution as to what it meant, and although he did not want to throw any blame on any of those who framed that great instrument, and wanted to give them every credit for the great amount of ability they had, he would like the matter cleared up by the Minister as to how that money was going to be disposed of, and on what principle they were to go. It seemed that that was another large sum which was being taken out of revenue and placed elsewhere outside the control of Parliament. That was the great objection he had to it. In making an inquiry into the subject he thought it possible that the money might be used for making a reduction of rates, but he found that that was not so, because he found that revenue was also to be provided for, and he thought that the House would generally agree with the original purpose of the South Africa Act in connection with the railways being carried out to the fullest possible extent. The country should benefit by the reduction of rates. He had noticed when the Minister was introducing his Budget he discoursed very pleasantly on the subject of branch lines, and he had an appreciative audience, he could see, on both sides of the House. He (Sir David Hunter) was not an opponent of branch lines, and he had some acquaintance with the subject, and thought that it would be well that the House should not quietly adopt the axioms put forward by the Minister of Railways in speaking to a sympathetic audience—speaking of these lines as being feeders to the main lines. He considered that the branch lines were a necessity for the country, and the country should be served by lines throughout the whole country. There should be a proper survey and a proper inquiry before branch lines were entered upon, because although it was a pleasant axiom that the branch lines should be feeders to the main lines; and although to a certain extent that was true, it was not all true—in fact, if they were to fall back on the experience of some members of that House he thought it would be found that the branch lines had added in reducing the share of profits from the main lines. Dealing with betterment, he said that there was one matter which had attracted his attention, and called for more information than had yet been given to the House.

said that the people in his part of the country were grateful for the reductions in the railway rates, hut it seemed to him that what the Minister gave with one hand he took away with the other He referred to the increase in the rates with regard to live-stock, which greatly affected Bechuanaland as a pastoral country, and was felt by the people there as a, great hardship. The hon. member referred to the question of concession tickets to visit shows. He urged that people should be given every facility to go to shows, which were of great educational value. It would be profitable to the railways, too, if they had a system of cheap fares from the interior to the coast. He also urged that there should be third-class carriages reserved for the use of Europeans.

said that he was rather discouraged by the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria West, because some of them had begun to wonder whether some of the provisions in regard to the railways embodied in the Act of Union were really going to mean anything at all to them. He (Mr. Merriman) spoke upon two points which he regarded in the light of an experiment. One was the provision of the Act of Union, which vested the management of the railways in a Railway Board. He said that the “exquisite tact” of his hon. friend had enabled them to carry on without a Bill to define the functions of the Board. The Minister, however, had treated the Board with such “exquisite tact” that it was almost impossible to see the Board. It was more elusive than a ghost. Some of them were very much disappointed with the practical effect of that section, because they expected that the Board would have been a living thing, and not a mere body of advisers. The other point to which the right hon. gentleman referred as an experiment was the principle laid down in the Act of Union that the railways should not be run for the benefit of the revenue of the country. Those of them from his part of the world regarded that as one of the vital provisions of the Constitution—(hear, hear)—and they did not intend that it should be a dead letter.

That was not the other experiment. The other experiment was the transportation system.

I accept the right hon. gentleman’s correction. Proceeding, he said that they objected to being taxed through the railways because of their geographical position.

It was very small.

It was small, but it was all you could get. Proceeding, the said that the Minister had been giving them a very glowing picture of the reduction of rates in the future, hut he must say that that was not borne out by the right hon. member for Victoria West, when he said he could not see where the revenue was to come from to make up the gap which would be caused by the surrender of the railway profits. The people of the northern colonies were suffering severely from this taxation through railway rates. No equalisation of taxation would be a fair equalisation which did not take account of this inequality. He saw little prospect of the dream of the Minister being realised. It had been pointed out already that the amount provided for depreciation was according to the department short by £400,000 of what it ought to be.

You have branch lines in the inland Provinces.

Yes, but the reason I singled out the Cape branch lines was because hitherto any loss was borne by the general taxpayer. Proceeding the hon. member referred to the rates on coal, and said that the Minister had stated he regarded a reduction of the rates on coal as a matter of very great importance. Well, he (the speaker) had preached that for wears, and he thought, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom had said, that if a reduction of the rates on coal from Middelburg to the Witwatersrand had been made a few years ago, they would not have had to face the large falling off there had been in the coal traffic by the installation of electric power on the Rand. If the railways were to be run on business lines, then he thought a low rate on the coal traffic would only be reasonable. The reduction would be profitable. He quoted figures to show that the industrial centre of the Transvaal, which could pay, was being made to pay He went on to refer to the contract which had been made with a certain colliery, which got rates which were not disclosed in the Tariff book. It was contrary to the fundamental principle of railway administration that a particular shipper should, by a special contract, get rates which were not given to the public at large. Well, he did say that a thing like that required a large amount of justification, no attempt at which had been made. If such a policy was going to be followed out, he did not think the public were going to be served as it should.

disagreed with the views expressed by Mr. Phillips as regards branch lines. He spoke in favour of reduced rates, saying that the success of the mealie export trade proved that reducing rates was to the benefit of the country. As to the point raised about the losses sustained by the Harbour Boards, he thought they should be run on their own basis—they should be self-supporting, because if the losses were sustained by the railways, it would only mean an Increase in the railway rates. Dealing with the New Cape Central Line, the line on which his district was dependent, he said that traffic had shown a very great improvement indeed, and he hoped that some relief would be given, because of the high passenger and freight rates. The passenger fares were from 70 to 100 per cent, higher than those on the S.A.R., while the freight rates were 100 per cent, higher, or more. The mealie (shipping rate for 6,000 miles had been 11s. 6d. a ton, while the rate on the N.C.C.R. for 62 miles was no less than 100 8d., while the rate on cement was 28s. He hoped the Minister would consider, not taking that line over, but seeing whether he could not enter into negotiations by which some relief could be given to the South-western Districts.

said that clause 127 of the South Africa Act said that railway rates to the interior should be fixed at as low a figure as possible, so that the interior could be developed. Agriculture was the backbone of the country, and what would happen to the country if the backbone was not in the condition it should be? In the past the interior had been sadly handicapped, because of the high railway rates; he was glad that some measure of relief had now been given, and he hoped that in the near future there would be even more reductions. On some articles the rates had even been raised. The rates on cement were 13s. 4d. to Beaufort West, which seemed a terrible rate, as much cement was needed by the farmers for carrying on certain works, and to pay £1 5s. for a cask of cement was quite prohibitive. Then he hoped that the rates on kraal manure would be reduced. It cost £6 to bring a truck load down from Beaufort West to the Western Province, which was also a prohibitive rate. The hon. member went on to deal with other railway matters about which grievances were felt, such as defective translations at stations, the absence of separate compartments for European and coloured third-class passengers, and the ill-treatment of cattle in transit.

said that he would like to express on behalf of his constituents to the members of that House and the Minister especially his appreciation of the fact that justice had at last been done to that part of the country. He would like to take that opportunity of thanking the representatives of the Transvaal for their consideration in agreeing so readily to the reduction of rates to the advantage of people living in the Cape Colony, which had placed them on a level with people living in the other inland parts of the Union. He congratulated the Minister upon the successful Budget that he had been able to place before the House. He also congratulated the Minister upon the great improvement which he had effected upon the railway and especially upon being able to give a thirty hours’ run to Johannesburg. He eulogised the excellence of the service rendered in the dining-cars. Mr. Oliver went on to say that if he consulted the immediate interests of his constituents solely, he should be against a sinking fund, but, with his knowledge of business, and always having adopted such a plan in his own business, he felt that he would be acting against the interests of the people he represented in this country if he argued that they should have no sinking fund. (Hear, hear.) He contended that each year they should take something off the capital account, if only a half per cent. He instanced the Wynberg line as another argument in favour of a sinking fund and a depreciation account. There was a splendid passenger traffic on that line, and still it did not pay. The reason was that it was over-capitalised, and he thought it was only good business to write down the capital and put the line on a working basis.

said that there were a large number of rates in force in the country, both through rates and local rates, which might with great advantage be reduced. The result of a reduction of rates would be not to reduce but to increase the railway revenue. He looked forward with great hope to the carrying out of the policy of the Government, which was to reduce the rates wherever it was possible. He had listened with regret to what Mr. Duncan had said about branch lines, who had fallen into an error in regard to the Cape branch lines, and showed la parochial spirit. The losses on the Cape branch lines had not been paid out of general revenue, and the figures dealing with the Cape branch lines had always been published, which was not the case with the branch lines elsewhere; at any rate, they did not figure in the General Manager’s report. Probably that was why there had been so much criticism in regard to the Cape branch lines. With reference to what Mr. Orr had said, he did not think there had been any concealment in regard to the large profits made by the Central South African Railways; and Mr. Hull had every year spoken of the large profits which were made, which had been criticised by Mr. Hosken, who held that the railways were bleeding the country. Dealing with railway workmen, he thought that a man need not necessarily retire at 60 if he were capable of doing his work. The hon. member proceeded to criticise the way in which these Estimates had been drawn up, and the difficulty hon. members had of following the various items. He did not understand what they wanted depreciation for their road for, if they were maintaining it, although he could understand their having depreciation for their rolling-stock. As to what Sir David Hunter had said about what they were doing for posterity, he had not pointed, out that they were handing on a debt of 77 millions to posterity; and he very much doubted whether they were doing as much for posterity as they should. He did not think they were paying interest on the whole of their capital as they should under the South Africa Act. Continuing, he said he thought they would be acting the part of prudence, of caution, and patriotism, if they insisted on an adequate Sinking Fund. As to the transportation system, he did not think Sir David Hunter’s arguments as to the number of accidents and so on in America fitted the case at all, because there were other causes quite outside the transportation system which went to swell the roll of railway accidents in the United States. Many casualties occurred, for instance, at level crossings. For his part, he thought there were many advantages in the transportation system which had done much to put an end to the circumlocution which prevailed under the old system. Still, they should regard the matter with an open mind, and try fairly to compare the results.

said he feared they would have to look for a decrease in the railway earnings during the year, not only on account of the reduced railway rates, but also on account of the reduced volume of trade, of which there were already symptoms. Well, the Commissioner had allowed for a decrease in the revenue, but, on the other hand, he had provided for an increase of expenditure. He thought the Minister might give the House some information as to now that position arose. He saw many reasons in looking through the Estimates why they should establish an adequate Sinking Fund in connection with the railway. He was pleased to see the saving on the coal bill, but he thought the saving would have been greater if the Minister had only given the fields which produced the best coal a fair chance. Natal coal was known to be the best steam coal, and it could be bought at lower rates than the railways were paying for inferior coal. He failed to see on what principle the Minister could justify the purchase of inferior coal at the pit’s mouth for 12s., when he could get Natal steam coal at half the price. The coal rates ought to be put on a better footing. Government should see that coal got a better chance. Government carried mealies at a uniform Charge of 10s. a ton. Why should not a similar policy be adopted in order to encourage the coal industry? A good deal of traffic was being lost owing to the impossibility of getting Natal coal to the coast at a low rate. Durban „ had specially been fitted up to deal with the coal trade, and its facilities in this direction were not fully being utilised. Then the delay in the conveyance of coal to Durban was very great. This could be obviated by having a special mineral line from the mines to the port. The hon. member disagreed with Government taking over the railway bookstalls, and expressed his fear that this step would not result in a profit. It would be far better to lease the bookstalls to private persons. As to Durban harbour, if all the figures were taken into consideration, he did not think the loss on it would be equal to the loss on the Cape ports. He hoped the Minister would tell the House more about what the Railway Board was doing. That Board was costing the country £14,000 a year.

objected to the absence of railway carriages for natives, which was especially hard on ladies.

said there were a few grievances which he wished to ventilate. Some of the up-country members appeared to think that the railways should be run entirely for their benefit. It was very absurd for them to claim all the benefits from the railways, and at the same time to say that the ports should derive no benefits at all from the railways. The ports, just as much as the interior, were partners in the railways, and ought to participate in the profits. It was important that the House should know the value of the services the railways performed for the Agricultural and other Government Departments. He should say that when the Railway Board did go into it, and tried to make a charge for those services which were rendered, they would find that it was costing the country about £250,000 a year. The Railway Board had got a balance, which they were now handing over to general revenue, of over millions. Add £250,000, which was to be given up in the way of concessions, and it meant that the general revenue or the taxpayer would Have to make up practically another millions in the next two or three years.

interposed, and said that the hon. member was only entitled to speak on the matter as far as it affected the rates on the railway.

pointed out that we imported £252,000 worth of fish last year, while our waters simply teemed with fish. If they got facilities for the fishing industry here in the way of harbours

The hon. member must confine himself to the railways, and not speak on the fishing industry.

said that all he wanted to add on the subject was that the Government should do everything to encourage the fishing industry by providing proper harbour facilities. If that were done, the railways would gain enormously. He urged that the Minister should give greater facilities to the poor people to go to Muizenberg by reducing the railway fares. He also urged the erection of a lighthouse at Slangkop.

At 5.55 p.m. the debate was adjourned until tomorrow.

moved that the items be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

was about to refer to the Cape Mounted Rifles, when business was suspended at six p.m.

said that he was very proud of the Cape Mounted Rifles, which was a fine corps, under fine discipline; and he was very glad to hear from the Minister that the corps would continue as before, or even have a better future before it than it had before. It might probably be the nucleus of their defence force in future. There was some feeling, however, against men having to retire after a certain fixed period, and he asked whether it could not be made longer? In the Cape Mounted Rifles they would have to serve 30 years before they got a pension, and when they went out, as they went out at present, in connection with East Coast fever, they had to bear their own expenses. This was felt to be a hardship on them; and there was not sufficient opportunity given them for suitable recreation. He hoped that the Government would keep these matters in mind. He did not want the men to be pampered, but give them opportunities for mental, moral, and physical development. While there was no danger of a native rising, yet there was a sore feeling amongst the natives on account of the losses of their cattle owing to East Coast fever, for they loved their cattle; and some of them were heart-broken owing to the death of their cattle.

I do not agree with the hon. member when he says that it is a just grievance to the men that they have to retire after a certain period of service. That was necessary in the public interest. The Cape Mounted Rifles, under their regulations, retire after a certain period of service in order that they may be more efficiently served; and after they retire from active service they are put on the reserves, and are liable for duty under certain circumstances, and my hon. friend knows that during the war, when the Cape Mounted Rifles were sent out on active service these reserves were called upon; and that is one of the best parts of the whole scheme; and although it seems to operate hardly in individual cases, it is certainly in the country’s interests. I do not think I need say vary much about the better moral surroundings for this force: I think it is a very good force indeed, and I do not think it necessary by special means to secure higher moral development, which I think is of a very high moral character indeed. (Hear, hear. )

May I draw the attention of the Minister to one thing—the congestion of officers in this force? The right hon. gentleman spoke of efforts made to get officers to pass the law examination, so that they could be appointed as Magistrates in the Native Territories, and said that quite recently they had got one officer to do excellent work in dealing with the natives. His attention had been drawn to him, and he had urged the officer to pass his law examination. That mode of getting a flow of promotion should not be lost sight of. Many of these men were well qualified—better qualified than most people—to take positions like Native Territories Magistracies and posts of that sort,

said he was glad to assure the right hon. gentleman that the matter he had mentioned was receiving serious attention. He knew it was only too true that this very efficient little force was too small to provide a proper flow of promotion, and he had given instructions that the officers of the Cape, Mounted Rifles, when they reached a certain grade, and could not move on, should be found better employment in permanent posts in the Defence Department in other parts of the country. These men were very highly qualified, and on several occasions he had taken some of them from the Cape Mounted Rifles and placed them in the Transvaal Volunteer Forces. He was doing that still. He agreed they should zealously prosecute that policy, not only in regard to defence, bur in reference to other departments.

The item was agreed to.

said there had been a big reduction in the provision for Militia and Volunteers, and the greater part of it seemed to have taken place in regard to Natal. Natal appeared to be a fair target to aim at in the matter of these reductions. The allowances to the Natal Volunteers were greatly reduced during the depression, but when the tide turned in 1909, the Government, after taking off certain taxes and raising the Civil Service, recognised that there was a duty on them to restore certain of the allowances to the Volunteers, with the result that last year the Volunteers were in a splendid position, well equipped and ready to go anywhere. Then, when Union came, they were again reduced to a starvation point. It was impossible for them to carry on the work and appear respectably on parade on the present grants, unless the officers put their hands into their pockets. Surely at a time like this that should not be the policy of the State. The Transvaal Volunteers had not been reduced, and relatively, both to the Transvaal and the Cape, Natal was badly treated in this respect. The sooner the defence force was put on a proper footing, the better it would be for the country. Either let them do away with the Volunteers altogether, or have them well equipped and prepared for duty.

said he would not emulate the dictatorial tone adopted by the last speaker, but he would also appeal to the Minister to give some consideration to the position of the Volunteers in Natal. If the Government were unable to restore the whole, he hoped they would give back a part. Let the recruiting allowance at least be restored. He regretted to say that the fact that these allowances had been cut down in a British colony had been used by some people in Natal to excite people to the idea that it had been done to stifle the British Volunteer in South Africa.

said that after the strictures that had been passed on, the Volunteers in general, he was almost afraid to rise in that House and speak on their behalf, and he would not have done so had he not been encouraged to do so by the splendid record of the South African Volunteers in the troubles that had taken place in the country. And when he compared the Volunteers of this country with the Volunteers of other countries, he thought they could say without fear of contradiction that they were superior to any other force of its kind in any other part of the British dominions. They were a robust set of men, many of whom lived on the veld and had seen a lot of active service. They had heard a lot about the skilled officer; but they had had experience in that country of distinguished generals and highly-trained officers being defeated by men who were not professional soldiers. So they should not condemn their force, even if they did not move with the same precision as regulars. He did not attach any blame to the Minister of the Interior, because the present conditions were those that were in force when he came into office. The Cape infantrymen received as capitation grant a sum of £3 per annum. They were receiving it today; but for many years they received a capitation grant of £4. He spoke from experience when he said that £4 per annum was not-sufficient to cover the expenses of clothing and training the men. If he (the speaker) had found such to be the case, surely the officers of the present day must find it a difficult task to keep their men together on a capitation grant of £3. He knew that the officers did their best in the circumstances, and put their hands in their own pockets in order to keep things going. These officers felt that as soon as the depression passed, and Civil Servants were put on their old footing, the Volunteers should receive the extra £1, making the amount £4. He did not wish to make invidious comparisons between the Volunteers of the Cape, the Transvaal, and Natal; but if he did he would show that the Cape Volunteers were the worst paid of all the Volunteers of the country. He did think that their Volunteers made great sacrifices in comparison to the small capitation grant that was paid. He thought the least the Union could do would be to pay sufficient to maintain these regiments. If the Union was not prepared to do that he thought the Union should say: “We don’t require these men any longer.” He did hope that out of the large amount voted for defence the Minister would see his way clear to place the Cape Volunteers on the old footing of a capitation allowance of £4 per annum. He could assure the Minister that it was very hard for these officers to be continually putting their hands in their pockets, and it was necessary that they got outside help towards the expenditure of keeping their regiments together. It was undignified for the Union to leave to private enterprise what was undoubtedly a duty of the State. (Cheers.)

said he was pleased to see that the camps had been replaced; but no provision had been made for paying the men while they were away from business. They world be out of pocket while in camp. He did not think that Lord Roberts would compare the Volunteers of the Cape with the men who joined the English regiments of Volunteers. The standard was infinitely higher in this than any other country. They must bear in mind in the future that the old system would not do, but until the Minister brought in his scheme he thought they should treat their present Volunteers fairly. He hoped that the Minister would bear in mind the recommendation for annual sea training of the Naval Volunteers, which the Admiralty considered so essential.

said the Natal corps had borne their fair share of all the fighting that had been going on. Dealing with mounted men, he hoped that the horse allowance would be replaced.

said he failed to see that the member for Durban had adopted a dictatorial attitude. He (the speaker) thought that he had put something substantial before the House, and put it clearly and fairly. But the statement of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Orr) with regard to the Cabinet and the Volunteers was very unfortunate, more so because it had come from the independent wing of the Nata! party It would be well to give some additional grants to the Natal Volunteers. On the whole, General Smuts was treating the Volunteers a little better than he did a few months ago, when no corps was allowed to recruit to fill up establishments; but that had been altered now. The establishment of every corps in the Cape was below what it was in 1908—(cheers)—and it was impossible for corps to pay their way with the present establishment. Corps should be allowed to increase their establishments to such a figure as would enable the commanding officers to meet the obligations which fell on them. (Hear, hear.) They did not want to see their corps disappear while the Minister was considering his defence scheme. The Minister, on the whole, was inclined to be generous, and did not deserve the censure of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg.

did not think it was fair to impute to the Union Government any bias in dealing with the question of Volunteer allowances. They found that on the eve of Union the Natal Government had raised the allowances of their Militia and Volunteer Farces. The Union Government cancelled this action, which seemed to savour of the unjust steward. He had gone carefully into the whole matter, and found that it was not possible, except in one respect, to go back on the Union Government’s action in that matter. He knew the Natal forces were efficient, and Government looked upon them as one of the most valuable Militia assets of the country. In Natal it had been the custom to pay the men for attendances at camps and parades. This was one of the matters which be altered some months ago, but in doing so be went unduly far, and he had decided to restore payments which had been in vogue for a long number of years. But he did not think that, he went too far in other respects. All that he had done was to get back to the state of affairs which existed some time prior to the Union. In the Cape he had restored the annual camps of exercise. (Hear, hear.) It had never been the custom in the Cape to pay men for attendances at these camps, and he did not think it was necessary to go any further at this stage. Colonel Harris had urged the case of the dismounted men, but he (General Smuts) did not think that just on the eve of a very large and almost radical reorganisation of the defence forces of the Union that the existing condition of affairs should be disturbed. The almost revolutionary change that was coming would mean an equalisation of conditions throughout South Africa. As to the point raised by Colonel Crewe, Volunteer corps would be allowed to recruit to their normal strength.

pointed out that in the Cape that strength was fixed, at the worst period of depression in 1908. Should a case occur in which a commanding officer was in serious financial difficulties, owing to debt in curred on behalf of his regiment, would the Minister endeavour to assist?

Certainly; if any special case were to occur, I would be only too willing to consider it. (Hear, hear.)

said he would treat the remarks of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Orr) with the contempt they deserved, and would throw them back in the hon. member’s teeth. (Laughter.) The payments to the Natal Volunteers were not increased because of the approach of Union. Even if the Natal Government went a little bit wrong in this respect, and went off the rails when Union took place, the same thing had been done in another Province. (Laughter.) This defence question was going to take time. As far as he could see, the organisation of the defence force must take two years. Were they going to allow the Volunteers of Cape Colony and Natal to remain in the state they were in now? Yesterday the Natal Provincial Council passed a resolution protesting against the reduction of the Natal Militia grants and allowances. He knew they had no right to do that, and they could have no weight in that House, but it just showed them how anxious those on the spot were. If the Minister could not see his way to increase the amount under these Estimates or the Supplementary Estimates, would be consent, after the session was over, to go down to Natal and meet the commanding officers to discuss the matter? In regard to camps in the Transvaal, they had only got a four days’ camp at Easter, but in Natal the Militia had a seven or ten days’ camp. Was it a fair proposition to ask those men to lose so much a day for the good of the country? Perhaps the Minister of Commerce, who was an old Volunteer, would be able to help them in this matter

said that the hon. member (Mr. Henwood) was most persistent, and he thought he ought to reply to what he had said, and in a conciliatory tone, too. His hon. friend the Minister of Commerce had taken the liveliest interest in his (General Smuts’s) action in regard to the Natal Volunteers, and had not given him any rest now for more than a month in this matter.

Has he converted you?

He converted me on the question of camps. Continuing, he said that he knew there was a certain amount of feeling in Natal. He was sorry that the Provincial Council had taken action in the matter. He was quite willing, and intended, when Parliament had risen, to go to Natal, and he hoped to meet the officers and discuss the whole question with them in all its details —(hear, hear)—when he had no doubt they would arrive at satisfactory results.

The item was agreed to.

moved the deletion of the vote of £800 for clothing, as he thought it was waste of the country’s money for mere show.

said that, in the interests of public decency, he would like to make an appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment, because he thought it would be a scandalous thing that the Cadets should go about without clothing. (Laughter.)

said that he did not see why they should spend that amount on the Cadets at all, while the country people were not provided with guns, and if war broke out they would have to go out and fight with sticks and the like. (Laughter.) The children in the Cadet Corps would be of no use if trouble came. They should spend the £19,645 on rifles for farmers. He had been to the wars a good deal, but without drill. (Laughter.)

said he hoped the hon. member for Prieska would withdraw his amendment. This vote of £19,000 the country ought to be only too glad to pass without any opposition. (Opposition cheers.) He appealed to the House not to look upon the vote in the same light as the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Let them look upon it as providing physical training for the young, and physical training which was very necessary.

What is the colour of the uniforms of the Cadets? (Laughter.) If it is khaki, I will oppose the vote, because I and the older population do not care for khaki. (Laughter.) If parents know that their children are to be clothed in khaki, many of them will not allow their children to become Cadets, because a feeling of that kind is not so easily eradicated.

said that the best colour to him in war was that of one’s old coat. (Laughter.) Several Free State commandos had been clothed in khaki. (Laughter.) Veterans did not need these uniforms, but in the case of these “young bloods” it was different, and the uniform was a great attraction to them. The Cadet movement was a most useful one in inculcating habits of obedience and discipline, as far as these lads were concerned; and Mr. Van Niekerk knew, when he was commandant, what trouble was caused when he had men under him who did not know what absolute obedience to their superiors was. He thought that that money spent on Cadets was most usefully spent—(hear, hear)—and he was in favour of it being spent. He agreed with Mr. Vermaas as to what he had said about furnishing rifles and ammunition to rifle clubs, and at present, he might point out, these rifle clubs could get their ammunition at cost price. A part of the defence scheme which might be adopted would be the furnishing of these clubs with the necessary arms and ammunition. (Cheers.) Hon. members had had their experience in actual warfare when young, but drilling and marching was an excellent training for the town children.

said he wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to the Woodstock Naval Cadets, because the work done by them was valuable. The establishment of this corps had been the means of taking white boys off the streets and training them in gymnastics and physical exercises. It had been found impossible to keep the corps in an efficient state without certain gentlemen having to put their hands in their pockets. He would submit to the Minister, that especially with regard to equipment and sheds for drilling, this corps had a special call upon the Government. He hoped the Minister would bear this in mind, so that these gentlemen would not be put to an expense which the Government should bear.

said he had been informed, that this was a very meritorious corps, and that being so, he would take the recommendation of the hon. member into consideration.

thought the amount of capitation grant for the Cadets was out of proportion to that for the Volunteers. Only a very small percentage of these Cadets joined the Volunteers, and what was the use of drilling these boys if they were starving the Volunteers? The strength of the Colonial Forces had been reduced on account of the reduction of the capitation grant. This was a very good movement indeed, but if the country spent this money it must be with the means to an object. He would like to see this sum reduced, and the reduction put upon the grant for the Volunteers.

The amendment was negatived.

The item was agreed to.

said that as the Imperial Conference would take place shortly, he would like to draw attention to the contribution of £85,000 towards the upkeep of the Royal Navy. This was a very important matter, and he had suggested some time ago that some business principle might be introduced in the application of this vote. This vote was made up of a contribution of £50,000 from the Cape Province and £35,000 from Natal, the two interior colonies did not contribute anything at all. This was a haphazard method of contributing to the Navy. Whilst he was entirely in agreement with the Minister in placing the coast defences in an efficient state, he would ask him to go further, and would suggest that before the forthcoming Conference he and his colleagues should discuss this principle of making this contribution on business principles. He would ask them to bear in mind that the insurance upon vessels and cargoes in connection with their South African sea-borne commerce amounted to £1,375,000 per year. The actual value of the ships and cargoes amounted to £217,000,000. The amount of insurance he quoted was only for risks in time of peace:, what they had to consider, however, was their risks in time of war, and he would ask hon. members to consider what these risks would be if the Royal Navy did not command the seas. In this country they only contributed 1s. 8d. per bead, as against £1 by the people of Great Britain, towards keeping this insurance at a low rate. They should fix the contribution for Imperial defence as against coastal defence on the volume of their sea-borne traffic, and that the capital cost of the coast defences should be deducted from the amount and the balance contributed to the Imperial Navy. This would be a business principle, and he thought it should be put before the Conference. The Minister of Railways asked what was the Declaration of London. Well, he did not know if the Minister was aware of that or not, but if the House would bear with him, he would give some information. Hon. members were doubtless aware that prior to 1856 privateering was allowed, that was to say, it was legalised, but it was regulated by rules that differentiated between privateers and pirates.

said that he was pleased to hear the “hear, hears,” because it showed him that more people had studied this intricate question than he had supposed. He must confess that this question was an extremely difficult one to understand. The hon. member was entirely wrong when he supposed that the Declaration of London had anything to do with the question of arming vessels at sea. He pointed out that when they came to actual war agreements were torn up. They had an example of that in this country. The laws of war were defied, and he had not the slightest, doubt that in the event of war all these fine paper agreements, the Declaration of Paris and the Declaration of London, would be torn up if Great Britain were strong enough to tear them up and therefore they should be slow about giving instructions to the Prime Minister as to what exactly he should do. With regard to the question of the naval contribution, he differed extremely from the other colonies in setting up tin-pot navies, which would be a source of weakness in time of war, and a source of enormous danger in times of peace. If they were really in earnest in belonging to the British Empire, and in wanting to make a nation in this country, then their only way at present was to join in supporting a strong British Navy. He was entirely opposed to preference, and it would be a good thing if preference were done away with, and the money derived from preference applied to increase our navy contribution. That was a sound and rational policy. However, this was not the time to discuss that question. He only rose to say he hoped the Minister of Defence was not going to depart from the sound views he expressed at the Conference which he attended with him (Mr. Merriman), and at which they were entirely at one. Much was done at that Conference, too, to make it understood that Ministers who went to these Conferences had no right to make promises without the express authority of their Parliaments. He hoped that would be insisted upon—that whatever was done by a Minister was subject to the ratification of Parliament.

said that the Declaration of London was going to touch important interests in this country. It would have to be signed this year or be dropped, and the Imperial Government had promised they would not sign it until they had consulted with the Prime Ministers of the various Dominions who were going to assemble in London in May. Now, the Union Prime Minister was going there, and he would have to take up some attitude in regard to it. It was right, therefore, that it should be discussed. There was no question which was going mere seriously to affect South Africa. We imported six millions every year, in the form of foodstuffs and drink, and it was easy to conceive what the privations of the people of this country would be if those supplier were cut off. Then we had a large export in gold, which would be the first thing an enemy would attack. There were two provisions in the Declaration which very closely concerned us. The first was with regard to contraband of war. Great Britain had always refused to acknowledge the doctrine that foodstuffs should be declared contraband of war, but it was proposed now, by this Declaration, that in certain circumstances, foodstuffs might be declared contraband of war. As he understood the Declaration, foodstuffs consigned to fortified ports in this country, like Cape Town, Simon’s Town, and Durban. By neutral vessels, would be contraband of war. The consequence was that the trade of these ports might be entirely cut off. Well, that was of great importance to South Africa. Then there was another point of importance concerning the constitution of the Prize Court at the Hague. That Court would consist of 15 members, and Great Britain only possessed one, and could not have more. On the other hand, some of the smaller Powers like Switzerland and Service would be entitled to nominate a member of the Court in six years. Well, it seemed to him utterly wrong that Powers without a foot of sea board should have the right to nominate members of a Board dealing with maritime matters, while parts of the British Empire, like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada had no representation. He thought one thing which should be urged as a condition of the acceptance of the Declaration was that these Dominions should also be represented, as separate from Great Britain. He hoped the Minister would take this matter into consideration, and try to come to some understanding with the representatives from the other parts of the Empire.

Where does the hon. member get his doctrine of foodstuffs from?

I was reading an article—

An article! I will read you something from a book—

What book?

said it was a book dealing with the Declaration of London. The hon. member read an extract to Show that under existing conditions foodstuffs were classed contraband of war. Continuing, he said that like all these things, it was a political hubbub. But the thing was recommended by the naval experts who went to the Hague, and he thought the honour of the Empire was just as safe in the hands of the naval experts as it was likely to be in the hands of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. (Laughter.) He thought the Prime Minister should study the question on the way to England; if he did he (Mr. Merriman) thought he would have an unhappy voyage. (Laughter.) This, he added, was a legal question on which he (the speaker) was quite unfitted to deal; and he was certain he had not the confidence of the hon. member for Cape Town. He thought the matter might safely be left in the hands of the British Parliament.

said that one of the strongest objectors was a prominent Liberal. The two naval experts agreed to the Declaration of London, but that did not show that all the naval experts in England agreed to it. He believed that the majority of naval men were opposed to it. With regard to the position of foodstuffs, many foreign Powers had claimed the right to make foodstuffs absolute contraband of war, but Great Britain had always refused to do so. Now, however, she allowed it under certain conditions, which would be very detrimental as far as South Africa was concerned. If two of the leading nations like Great Britain and the United States did not agree to foodstuffs being declared contraband, foreign Powers would hesitate before doing so, (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had rather misled the House on one or two points. The right hon. gentleman said the naval experts had approved of the Declaration. It was true that they put their signatures to the Declaration, but in a footnote they specially drew attention to the possible effect of the Declaration upon the interests of the Empire.

I said they signed it.

They signed it as naval advisers. Proceeding, Mr. Long said that with regard to foodstuffs, Mr. Merriman had quoted from an old edition of the book. The Declaration of London stated that foodstuffs were contraband when they were destined for any base of supply. (Cheers.) It had been argued that any British port would be held in time of war to be a base of supply. (Cheers.) If that were so, any South African port would be a base of supply for the British Army in conducting operations against, say, German forces in South Africa. Nothing was said in the Declaration about privateering, in spite of the fact that England’s instructions to her delegates laid special stress on the absolute necessity of repudiating the clause permitting privateering. It was impossible, however, to get the Continental Powers to agree to repudiate that clause. What would be the inevitable inference if England signed? It was that having failed to get that repudiation, she had acquiesced in the view that privateering was permissible. What an enormous danger there would be to British commerce under such circumstances. England had a big navy, but she also had an enormous preponderance of sea-borne commerce. If privateering were permitted it would be a problem beyond the capacity of the British Navy to protect British commerce. It was estimated that for three months of the year during the South American grain season there were, spread over 100 square miles of sea, 60 British ships carrying supplies to England. Supposing a hostile liner were turned into a privateer, and got on to that line of commerce.

I should be sorry for her.

It would be a very difficult matter to trace a ship which slinks out of port as a liner, and then turns herself into a privateer. Think of the enormous damage she could do. Proceeding, Mr. Long said there was another point that had not been raised. It had always been the doctrine of England and America that it was not permissible for warships to sink neutral vessels in time of war. But the Declaration of London said that under certain conditions it was permissible to sink such a vessel if the warship could not take her into port. If one thought of the possibilities of ships carrying foodstuffs being captured and sunk, one would see what enormous damage could be done to the commerce of England, and to the sea-borne commerce of South Africa. The highest legal authorities differed on the Declaration, and it was not permissible for anyone to say that the Declaration was altogether against or in favour of the interests of Great Britain.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town had stated that the Chambers of Commerce in Great Britain had passed a resolution against the Declaration of London. He might mention that there was another body in London—the Shipowners’ Association of Great Britain—which passed unanimously a similar resolution against this Declaration being ratified. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Durban in regard to the naval contribution. There should be some basis upon which this naval contribution was made. Anyone who went down to Simon’s Bay now, and saw the inadequate defence, would come to the conclusion that the sooner they did something in the way of improving matters, the better it would be for us. While he agreed with the hon. member for Victoria West that they should not have little tin-pot navies, he supposed they would net say that the statesmen of Australia and Canada were not level-headed also, and not aware of what they ought to do. In any scheme that we took up who should see that a more adequate defence and better equipped ships were sent cut to our coast than we had got at the present time.

said that this was rather a slur on the defences of South Africa. He behoved that Simon’s Bay was one of the best defended places of its kind on earth to-day.

On land.

Not only on land, but also on sea. (A VOICE: “Oh, no.”) That is absolutely the fact. Hon. members want Dreadnoughts, I suppose, in False Bay, but of its class and kind there is no place which is better defended in the British Empire today. Proceeding, he said that he did not want to join in the discussion which had taken place, and he had really nothing of any value to add to it. He must say he had come to no settled conclusion whatever on this question of the Declaration of London. His hon. friend opposite (Mr. Jagger) had read a few newspaper articles, but only those who had studied this question of the Declaration of London most deeply and carefully knew of the great difficulties that surrounded it, and the more they knew of the subject the slower they would be in coming to any conclusion upon it. So far as he had been able to read the literature on the subject, it seemed to have resolved itself into a battle between the lawyers on the one hand and the merchants on the other. He could well understand that there should be a great consensus of legal experts in favour of this Declaration, whereas mercantile men, who did not know the chaos of the law, who did not know the enormous risks they were running under the present state of the law, thought that—well, that there was much more danger in the Declaration. He thought it was a difficult subject, and he did not think, with all respect to this committee, that they would add very much to the enlightenment of the world. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The subject was going to be discussed at the Imperial Conference. Whether their South African delegates were going to add very much to the enlightenment of that Conference he did not know—(a laugh)—but he was sure that that Conference would focus a great deal of mercantile and legal talent, and that the subject would receive very adequate consideration there. As his hon. friend was aware, there was a Bill being introduced into the House of Commons. This Bill was necessary because of the Hague Convention. It was necessary to have a Court of Appeal on prize matters, from national tribunals. It was necessary to define English law, in order that an appeal might be made from an English Court, and this law would have to be passed, before the Declaration of London would be signed. The British Government had promised to allow the fullest discussion upon this Bill, and so he did not think it would be wise for them to rush in where “angels feared to tread.” (Laughter.) It would be best to leave this matter to the British Parliament and the numerous experts. With regard to the Naval contribution, he thought there was some misunderstanding on that point. Hon. members seemed to be under the impression that this contribution was going to be arranged at this Conference, but that was not the case. The only application to put this subject on the agenda had come from South Africa, but no ether Dominion had expressed its intention of bringing it up; therefore, it would not be discussed at all. Two years ago this Conference dealt with this question, and he did not think it was wise to discuss the question now at this late hour. (Hear, hear.)

said his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) had referred in scathing terms to the Chambers of Commerce, but he would tell him that more wars had arisen from trade than from religion, even although these had been considerable. He referred to the important statement that the Minister of the Interior had made. He understood it was not the intention of the Government to discuss the question of contributions to the Navy. A few months back the Hon. Minister stated that, the matter was in abeyance, and that it would be discussed at the Imperial Conference. Now, he hoped that this discussion would not take place. What had been the case with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? They had decided upon their contributions. Surely, then, it would have been best for the Minister to consider what would have been a fair and reasonable contribution from South Africa. He did not think that a contribution of £85,(XX) was a fair and reasonable contribution to the Imperial Navy. It was utterly impossible for the people of Great Britain to go forward with that development in naval construction which was necessary to maintain security, not only for Great Britain alone, but for the whole Imperial possessions. Therefore, if it was not their intention to discuss this matter, the Minister should have come forward with some proposal. He was not going to say what an adequate contribution would be, but one-tenth of the percentage was surely inadequate for the protection of their trade. If, by reason of the heavy burden, it was found impossible for the British taxpayer to keep up the Imperial Navy to its proper strength, surely it was going to be an extremely serious position for this country. He hoped the Hon. Minister would reconsider these Estimates. They were the only British possession that was making such an inadequate contribution to the Navy.

The item was agreed to.

said that, like Mr. Vermaas, he had learnt to shoot and fight in war without drill; but under present circumstances, lads did not have such an opportunity of learning to shoot. It was a very good thing for lads to have habits of order, obedience, and discipline inculcated, and uniforms were of great assistance in creating esprit de corps.

dealt with the question of bewaarplaatsen in the Transvaal, and after giving a historical survey of the matter, concluded by expressing the hope that the Minister of Mines would be able to give the House an assurance that next year the Government would introduce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed in 1908, because he thought it was perfectly clear from the report of the committee that the evidence justified that course; and from what took place in the Transvaal Parliament, it was the intention of that Parliament that the Government should follow the report of the Committee which it decided should be appointed. The matter involves a considerable sum of money; how much it was impossible to say.

One million?

It is quite impossible to say.

Roughly?

It is quite impossible to say, because it is spread over a number of years. There have been numerous transactions in connection with these areas, which have passed from the original owners of the farms, and some of those transactions have been based on the expectation that this matter would be dealt with in terms of the report of this Commission. (An HON. MEMBER: What is the date of the report?) The date is February 26, 1910, or over a year ago, and no action has been takes, although I don’t complain of that; but I hope that we will get an assurance that something will be done next session.

asked whether the Minister could give any information as to the intention of the Government with regard to the Mines Benefit Fund. The Minister, in answer to a previous question on the same subject, had replied that the Government had not had an opportunity of discussing It, and he would like to impress upon the Minister for the Government to do something to redress the long-standing grievances which were being felt. They were in favour of a consolidated fund, and that could only be done under Government auspices; and the Government were the proper people to give effect to the desires of the men in that regard. It might be said that there were a number of men who were against that amalgamation; but he had not yet found any who were against it. He thought that the Government should consider that, apart from any scheme they might have in mind in future.

with regard to the bewaarplaatsen, agreed that the Government should do something next year, as advocated by the hon. member for Germiston. He also hoped that something would be done to meet municipalities, so that the burden of the rates would not be so heavy.

asked whether the whole vote was going to be put en bloc or the separate heads?

The whole vote.

said that the matter referred to by Mr. Sampson had exercised the minds of many men on the Rand, and he wanted to endorse what his hon. friend had said, hoping that the Minister would do something to meet them as early as he could. He wished the Minister to give some detailed information about the intentions of the Government with regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Bill.

said that there was a certain increase of £65,000 in the vote, which he would like the Hon. the Minister to give some information about, as he thought that it should have been only £25,000. Evidently, ideas of economy were at a discount.

replied that, besides the £25,000 referred to, there was another £50,000 from the Provincial Administrations; this explained why the amount was now increased. In reply to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), he would say he thought that the time was coming when legislation would have to be introduced. He was sorry to say he had not been able to give the matter—a complex one—much attention up to the present, and so could not give the House any undertaking as to the character of the proposed legislation. As to the Mines Benefit Fund, he was sorry to say that he was unable to give any information, though legislation would no doubt be framed in the early future. Miners’ phthisis was receiving the serious attention of the Government, and he hoped that members would not go home without passing the legislation on the subject. Dealing with the Mines School, he said that they would all look forward with great interest to the results of the experiment. It would not be purely a case of expenditure, for some revenue was credited to the item. He hoped that his hon. friend would not persist in his unreasonable opposition to the experiment.

said he wanted to know what prospects would be held out to these people, and also the scope of the work?

said that one slope would be hired. The boys would be started at a salary of 4s. 2d. a day, and the pay would be increased to 6s. 9d. in the course of three years, during which they would be fully trained as miners.

asked if there was a penalty clause in cases where boys wanted to leave after being in the school a few months.

said notices would be issued all over South Africa regarding admission to the school. He hoped the students would not be induced in advance to break their contracts. The scheme was tentative, but the object was to make the students good miners.

asked for information with regard to the vote for assistance for district mining development. Under this heading £20,000 was put down for the construction and repair of drifts and roads, and £10,000 for general assistance. He hoped Government would not profess to give assistance to prospecting, and then escape its liabilities by spending the money on the construction of roads, which in any case it would have to build.

asked whether there would be an age limit in regard to the Miners’ Compensation Bill, and whether lads who contracted miners’ phthisis would be entitled to compensation?

said that he did not know what the legal position would be in regard to these boys. He thought the hon. member was trying to frighten them off. General Smuts explained the position in regard to the Government drills, and moved the deletion of items 7, 8, and 9 of sub-vote H.

said he was sorry that the Minister had insinuated that he had an ulterior motive in raising this question.

No, I did not.

said that his sole object was to safeguard these lads. He wanted to know whether in the event of their contracting miners’ phthisis they would come within the scope of the Bill?

said the most stringent regulations would be enforced. He moved to reduce the amount by £1,160, being the items under H 7, salaries, H 8, and H 9.

Agreed to.

The reduced vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on the following day.