from residents of Wynberg, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences.

from the Natal Bank, for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Private Law of Natal, dated 3rd day of August, 1866, relating to the Natal Bank now incorporated under the name of The Natal Bank (Limited).

appointed Mr. Long and Mr. Krige to be examiners on the petition, and specially to report on the reason for the presentation thereof after the thirtieth day of the session.

from residents of Kimberley, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from J. A. Liebenberg, teacher.

from residents of Kimberley, for legislation whereby the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives will be prohibited.

from J. D. Cox, stationmaster, Godwan River.

from residents of Wynberg, for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

Report, Geological Commission, 1910 (Cape).

Return showing particulars of Special Warrants issued by the Governor-General, 26th January, 1912, to 26th February, 1912.

in moving the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill, said that it was to provide a further expenditure towards the service of the period from May 31, 1910, to March 31, 1911. The schedules showed that the saving over expenditure was £35,5215 19s. 10d. Now, he might say generally that that had been incurred, partly in one or two instances being underestimated, partly by liabilities incurred prior to Union, and very largely owing to increased traffic which gave them a very substantial increase in revenue. It was his intention, after the second reading of the Bill, to move that it be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

said that he would like to ask whether, in its present form, the Bill was within the rules of the House. He saw that the Minister proposed to ask the House to vote over £33,000, whereas the additional expenditure had been £232,000. He arrived at the smaller sum by allowing for certain surpluses. He thought that was against the rules of the House, and contrary to the terms of the Audit Act. In that Act the Commissioner was allowed to take the services for a sub-vote and use them for other services in the same sub-vote, but he was not allowed to take the surplus and use that for maintenance of way and works and rolling stock. The two services were entirely distinct, and he would like to put that point to Mr. Speaker. He thought that the Minister had first to ask for Parliamentary sanction for the whole of the additional expenditure, and allow his surplus to fee surrendered to the revenue in the ordinary way. There was a very important principle behind it, because if the House sanctioned that procedure they might find the Railway Department using their surplus for anything they liked; and coming to Parliament and asking for only £10,000 when they had spent a surplus of £400,000 on another thing. In this case the additional expenditure which the House had to sanction was £200,000, and not £33,000. He suggested to the Minister that he should withdraw the Bill in its present form and reintroduce it later.

said that there was a great deal in what the hon. member had said, and he went with him, except he thought the hon. member was wrong in saying that they should vote £200,000 and surrender the other amount. It was really a Deficiency Bill, and not an Additional Appropriation Bill in any sense of the word, which was for the service of the present year, and which his friend the Minister of Finance might bring in at any moment. It was really a sum which the railways underestimated for the year, and all he could say was that if it was underestimated by a sum of £33,000, it was an uncommonly close thing, and he wondered that they estimated so closely, and in any additional unforeseen expenditure which had taken place he was surprised that there was not a good deal more. (Hear, hear.) As a rule, these Bills went to the Public Accounts Committee, came back to the House, and were passed as an ordinary matter. The Auditor had already reported in the matter.

said he should like to point out to the House that the report of the Auditor-General on the railway accounts for 1910-11 had already been referred to the Public Accounts Committee, which would have to bring up a report to the House on those accounts and on that report of the Auditor-General. In his opinion the Minister should have waited till the accounts had been scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee before bringing the Bill before the House. He moved that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report, and that the committee have leave to bring up an amended Bill.

seconded

said he had no objection to such a course. He would only say that repeatedly in the past the same procedure had been carried out. He had no objection to the Bill going to the Public Accounts Committee.

said that this was one of those little Bills that required to be looked into very carefully. It would be remembered that when the Minister moved for the second reading he (the speaker) objected to such an early date, as hon. members were not in possession of the measure. The course that had been pursued seemed to him to be wrong. He drew attention to the Bill of 1910, whereby £11,283,000 was placed at the disposal of the Minister to deal with as set forth in the schedule. It was therein enacted that the vote should only be used in certain directions, and that any surplus should be surrendered. He had found that there had been a saving of £199,292 18s. 6d., and that there was an excess of expenditure on certain votes of £232,616 18s. 4d. Instead of surrendering the saving, the Minister used it to cover excess of expenditure.

Does the hon. member object to the amendment?

I am not opposing it, I am endeavouring to show that savings on the 1910 Bill have been used for covering excess of expenditure, and that the Minister had no right to do it. It is contrary to the Act, which by section 2 clearly provides that “the said aids and supplies shall not be issued or applied to any use, intent or purpose other than the particular services to which the said amount has been granted by this Act.” Continuing, the hon. member said that clause 3 of the 1911 Act gave the Minister further powers, and stated that a saving under any head might be used for excess of expenditure. The Minister had not that power under the Act of 1910. He pointed out that even the powers under the 1911 Act were limited, and the Minister could only use savings for purposes mentioned, in the first column. Under the heading “Miscellaneous, net revenue account,” there was an excess expenditure of £49,647. Now that excess in the Bill of 1911 appeared in the second column, and even if the Minister had the powers provided in the 1911 Act, under the Act of 1910 he could not have used the saving against the excess of expenditure. There were two other items, totalling £69,689, wherewith to purchase real estate, and of which not a penny has been expended for that purpose; the vote had been used towards covering up the excess of expenditure on other items. What were they coming to?

Hear, hear.

I value the opinion of the right hon. member in a matter or this sort. Continuing, he said that things were not all they should be. The House made laws. If the hon. Minister was going to override those laws as he liked, what were they going to do? Could the Minister defy the House with impunity? Now he tried to cover up these things by presenting a little Bill. He admitted that being only £253,000 out on an estimate of £11,000,000 was almost marvellous, but that was not the point. The point was the House made laws, and these should be respected, at any rate by those in high authority.

said he would like to offer a few remarks upon the Bill, which he agreed should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. It was probable that in the case of the Union Railways there would always be necessary a Supplementary Supply Bill, although, he hoped of annually diminishing amount. The first two items in the Bill, representing excesses in the expenditure upon the maintenance of permanent way and works, and the upkeep of rolling stock, he rather welcomed as evidence that the Railway Department intended to maintain the railways and their equipment at the highest level of efficiency, and to debit working expenses with every proper charge. He had frequently called the attention of the House to the subject of depreciation. There was in the Bill an item of considerable amount debited against working expenses in the Harbour Department ; but in the railway portion of the Bill, very large sums voted were not shown.

They are charged against net revenue.

Yes; but all the same they were taken out of the revenue of the year, and put out of sight of Parliament, with the Public Debt Commissioners. These items called for very careful attention. The Hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours had courteously replied to a question put by him in the House a few days ago that a balance to the credit of the depreciation fund at March 31, 1911, was £2,375,000. On the Estimates for the current year, the sum of £1,185,000 was voted; and for next year they were asked to vote £1,366,000. Thus nearly £5,000,000 is being taken out of general revenue in three years, and practically out of the control of Parliament! He could not understand it. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to see that the Auditor-General, whose reports he had just seen, was alive to the importance of this subject, and he hoped the Public Accounts Committee would go narrowly into it. The reasons given, in some of the answers to the Auditor-General, for so large an amount of “depreciation” was the low condition of the rolling stock. In that case, the colonies had not gone into Union on equal terms, for he knew that in one case, at any rate, that of Natal, the rolling stock was in the highest degree of efficiency, after the ravages of the war had been repaired. Then there was an item of some £163,000 for equalisation of rates. He had never been able to understand that provision in the Act of Union. The Auditor-General also asked an explanation from the General Manager of Railways, who evidently did not understand it, and so here was a large amount voted of which no one seems to know either the reason or the destination! He offered these remarks in a friendly spirit, feeling that inquiry was necessary, and because it was the duty of everyone who had special experience to place it at the service of the House. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was agreed to.

resuming his speech, said that, when the debate was adjourned, he was pointing out to the House the importance of public health legislation in this country. This appeared to be a Bill intended largely to supervise the work of local authorities. It had been said by previous speakers that there was a danger of interfering with some of the functions of the Provincial Council, and he thought the Minister would be well advised if he gave that matter consideration. He was sure the Minister did not desire to create friction between the two bodies. Those connected with municipalities would find it very difficult to know to whom they should apply for guidance and advice —the Provincial Council or the Central Government. The hon. member referred to clause 11, and remarked upon the very restricted powers that Parliament had in the past given to local governing bodies and the difficulties they always met with in getting from Parliament those powers which were necessary for local bodies to carry on their work. He would say to the Minister that he should give to the local authorities the powers he would take under the regulations framed by him, and then he would have no necessity for interfering with the affairs of the local authorities at all. He would like to ask the Government why should local authorities be interfered with? He would like the Minister to give his attention to clauses 12 and 13. It was said that the Government might appoint epidemic committees where it was considered that the local authority was not doing its duty. There was no provision in the Act for the representation of local authorities on these epidemic committees. They were to have the powers of municipalities without local knowledge. The local authority was to have no voice in the appointment of the committee. He had had experience in dealing with plague matters where the Cape authorities exercised a similar authority, and they sent four or five officers down to Simon’s Town to supervise the control of the Municipality. Where the Government was spending money it was only right that they should have a direct voice in the expenditure, but where they were spending municipal moneys the Municipality should also have a voice in the expenditure—(cheers)—and consequently the appointment of these committees should not take place without the Municipalities being consulted.

In regard to payments in connection with an outbreak the Government wished to take power to call on the local authority to pay half, and where no local authority existed the Government were themselves to bear the whole cost. Epidemics might be introduced through the agency of trains or steamers, and it seemed very unjust that the local authority, which had no control over the train or steamship services, should be made to bear the cost incurred by any epidemic that might be brought by them. It was for the benefit of the whole of South Africa that any epidemic should be stamped out; it was a national matter. Consequently the Government should bear the whole cost. (Opposition cheers.) Supposing the Government did carry out this proposal regarding the’ apportionment of the cost, he did not think the Minister had shown sufficient justification for it. He was going to create an anomaly which the Financial Relations Commission had done their best to adjust. They knew that in Natal, the Transvaal, and the Free State the only local authorities were a few townships, whereas the whole of the Cape Province was covered by local authorities, either Divisional Councils or Municipalities. Yet the Government proposed to make the Cape Colony pay one-half of the cost and the Government would bear the whole cost in the other Provinces where no municipality exists. The Bill should not be allowed to go through with this unjust provision. Cases in which the local authorities neglected their duty would be very few indeed. Regarding the clause dealing with shipping, quite a new feature was introduced into the Bill. Hitherto in Natal and the Cape when a steamer arrived with contagious diseases or an epidemic on board the Government had always taken the necessary precautions to deal with it and had paid the necessary expenditure. Here it was proposed that all the expenditure in connection with disinfection should fall on the shipping companies. They could imagine what the effect of that would be. Vessels going to Australia would not allow their passengers to disembark here, but would take them right on to their destination. And if the shipping companies were to be made to pay they were going to get it out of someone. They would get it out of the inhabitants of South Africa by increasing fares and freight. He was surprised that the Government should make such a proposition when they were about to negotiate with Sir Owen Philipps in connection with the mail service. Shipping companies were, without notice, to be placed to extra expense. They would ask what guarantee they had against a repetition of this in future Bills. In a Bill of this nature the Government ought not to penalise shipping companies. He thought that the Bill had not been well considered, and hoped that the Minister would accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Woodstock and merely take power to deal with the plague at the ports, and bring in a more comprehensive Bill next session. Proceeding, he said that a solution of the whole matter would be the creation of a department to deal with public health. The Minister proposed merely to appoint a medical officer and two subordinate officers, all quite independent. Such a position was not found in any other Government department. In each case there was an administrative department to deal with similar matters. Continuing, he said that it appeared to him that they were devoting more attention to animal diseases than to human diseases. (Opposition cheers.) Having referred to the splendid effect of the good work carried out by the United States Health Department in the region of the Panama Canal, Mr. Runciman observed that if South Africa had a Public Health Department, there would be no necessity for Commissions dealing with miners’ phthisis or tuberculosis, for these diseases would soon cease to exist. The Minister of the Interior seemed to think that a doctor was not a good administrator, but the same thing might be said of lawyers. The man at the head of the American Public Health Department was an eminent doctor. In conclusion, Mr. Runciman expressed the hope that the Bill would be withdrawn, and that next year a better measure would be introduced. It would be unjust to carry the Bill through in its present form. (Hear, hear.)

agreed that the Bill should be withdrawn, particularly because there were grave omissions in it. Government should wait until it had the report of the recently appointed Tuberculosis Commission. He could not imagine a Public Health Bill which did not contain a strong reference to tuberculosis. It seemed to him that Government had an extraordinary incapacity to select the right men to sit on Commissions. For this purpose, the most advanced and highly-technical men were needed, and if they could not be found in South Africa, they should be brought out from Europe. There was no doubt whatever that two at least of the members of the Tuberculosis Commission should not have been appointed, and ho appealed to the Minister to withdraw their names, for the good of the public health of South Africa.

said he desired for once to associate himself with those who sat on the Opposition side of the House—(Opposition cheers)—and to say that he was sorry that the Bill had been brought forward in its present form. The matter might have waited, and a short Bill be introduced renewing the Natal Act for the time being. He was afraid that if the House did pass the present Bill, it would enormously increase the period before they had a proper measure, for such autocratic powers were given the Minister that he would not want to seek any further powers. The Minister of the Interior had said a day or two previously that he was not in favour of too much centralisation, but in the Bill he did away with Provincial Boards which could give him assistance. Natal had subsequent to the Act of 1901 passed an Amending Act, and several lay representatives were placed on the Board, and the result was that, although there was no conflict between the medical and the lay members, the position had been placed more clearly before the Minister, and the sting had often been taken out of the proposed regulations.

He urged upon the Minister that he would do well to keep some local Board, even if it were only in an advisory capacity. He thought that in that respect a great mistake had been made. Unless they had that outside advice from other sources, there would always be a chance of conflict with the public ; and the Minister should endeavour to carry public opinion with him. In clause 11 the Bill went too far. It was unfair to place upon any port even half the cost of dealing with any disease that was brought by the shipping; and he hoped that the Minister would not push that Bill through an unwilling House.

who could only be followed with difficulty in the Press Gallery, having alluded to some instances of laxity elsewhere in connection with cases of disease brought by ships, went on to say that if they applied so stringent a rule to shipping here, they must also be stringent with regard to hotel proprietors, and there was no getting away from the fact that if the rule was so stringent, a medical officer would give a ship pratique in a case of some doubt, rather than put all that expense on the ship.

said that he wished to corroborate what had been said as regards the shipping point of view. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, had said that he had consulted medical men, but he did not seem to have consulted shipping men or shipowners, and see how they would be affected by that Bill. The Government seemed to be very ignorant of shipping matters, and the suspicion that had got about last session, when another Bill dealing with shipping was before the House, had been confirmed by what was brought forward this session. The regulations in that Bill were of so drastic a nature that ships would not come to South Africa without fear and trembling on the part of the shipping men. He would, therefore, suggest that the Bill be withdrawn and more carefully considered; or if not withdrawn altogether, referred to a Select Committee, and some trouble taken by the Minister to get information from the shipping people.

said he would point out that only certain clauses of the Natal and Gape Colony Acts are to be repealed. The rest of the Cape Act and of the Natal Act were to remain in force.

No, no.

said that what the Minister wanted was a measure to assist him in bettering the public health of the country. Of course, the measure could have gone much further in regard to tuberculosis, but they must recognise that the Government could not satisfactorily deal with this question until it had sufficient information. He referred to the apathy of hon. members whenever this matter of public health was brought before the House. He pointed out that disease was a great creator of poverty, and said that if they wanted to settle the question of poor whites then they must tackle disease in the country He added that disease was no longer confined to particular localities, but was spread all over the country; and referring to remarks made by the hon. member for South Peninsula, said that that gentleman could hardly be expected to pay for an outbreak of an epidemic of disease which happened, say, at Paarl. He argued that when an epidemic occurred it was only right that the local authority through whose neglect it had become rampant should pay. He considered that medical men made quite efficient administrators, and quoted examples in this connection. It had been said that they could not go further with the tuberculosis in the Bill because the Government was awaiting the report of a Commission. He considered that hon. members knew enough about the circumstances and the requirements of the country to make a start with the treatment of this serious matter. It was held all over the civilised world, but especially in the British Isles, that it was possible, in fact almost certain, in 40 or 50 years by methods which were known primarily of prevention, they would entirely exterminate tuberculosis. If that were known, then surely it was unnecessary for them to wait for a Commission to report on details. There was no doubt that tuberculosis was rampant in every part of this country. It had been brought here, and now was prevalent all over the country. There was also the question of miners’ phthisis, and when they dealt with tuberculosis it became apparent that the first thing necessary was full notification of the disease. It was the first essential with cattle diseases and the first with tuberculosis in man. There was a law in the Cape which enabled a Municipality to ask for that provision, but might he point out that the notification ought to be followed up by some local treatment, and that was entirely absent? He would admit that in the Peninsula they had tried to do something. He would like to point out to the hon. member for Simon’s Town (Mr. Runciman) that if his town was going to go in for an entire system of treatment they might probably be saddled with cases from other parts. It was because of that possibility that local authorities did not follow up the notification with local treatment, and because of that it became necessary that the State should deal with the matter, making, in the first instance, notification compulsory, and following it up with compulsory action. Regarding the treatment of the disease, he would like to say that in this country they had no effectual institutions for dealing with the disease. They had no sanatoria, as they had in Europe, and they knew from experience what great advantages they were. But the sanatoria treatment was always pretty well of a personal nature. In Scotland they had an excellent system called the caravan treatment. The outdoor patients were collected and placed under the charge of experienced persons and allowed to trek about the country in caravans. Of course, in thickly populated districts that might be a source of infection, but in a country such as this such a system would be of great value in dealing with the disease; especially in the treatment of children in the early stages of phthisis. The expense of equipping a caravan would not be great in this country, and the patients could trek to the Karoo in winter and near the coast in summer. It would be cheaper than hospital treatment. When they recognised how rampant the disease was in this country, how widespread it was, and how it affected every branch of life, they felt that something ought to be done, and one could only regret that there should be any waste of time in waiting for a Commission to do the things which common-sense told them should be done. His regret was that tuberculosis had not been included in clause 13. At the same time he would support the second reading of the Bill, knowing that the Minister was intent on doing something to meet the requirements of the situation.

said that the old story that doctors differed had been illustrated in this case. He would remind the hon. member (Dr. De Jager) that this was not a Bill dealing with the therapeutics of any particular disease. As far as he could understand it, the Bill was almost a replica of the Health Bill introduced in the House last session. It was in some respects an improvement on that Bill, but it failed to carry out a good many of the suggestions made not only by the members of the House, but by those who took a good deal of interest in public health and the functions of Local authorities generally. As far as he understood, the objections to its provisions might be looked at from two different points of view, or rather to the two purposes which it had ; and in both of these it seemed to him that the machinery set up by the Bill was defective in the highest degree. The first portion dealt with what one may call the administration of a public health department, or rather the provisions for a public health department which were entirely wanting in this Bill. Last session it was argued, and it had again been argued, that the real, proper head of the public health affairs of this country, subject to the Minister, of course, should be an administrative officer, who was a medical man. There was no provision of that kind in the Bill. The functions provided for a medical officer of health in this Bill were purely advisory functions. He was to have no initiative, and could only advise when called upon. The Minister of the Interior asked for authority to appoint a chief adviser who would be called a medical officer of health, but, in addition to that, he asked for authority to appoint a number of assistant medical officers of health. Then he wanted authority to appoint a number of additional medical officers of health. What one asked, in the first place, was, whom were those assistant medical officers going to assist? They did not advise through the medical officer in chief. The Minister did not even communicate with the assistant medical officers through the chief medical officer. But the advising officers by the Bill did not stop with the assistant medical officer; the additional medical officers of health were also to have direct access to the Minister. He did not think that that arrangement was at all likely to work, because the Minister would have any number of advisers who might not be in agreement. He did not see how it could possibly work. The other side of the objections to the Bill had been raised by friends of the local authorities, men who had had large experience, especially in the Cape Province, of the working of those authorities in so far as public health matters were concerned. To all of them, as they saw, this Bill was anathema. And no wonder. (Hear, hear.) This Bill, instead of removing friction, was going to intensify it ten-fold because at every point the local and Provincial authorities would run up against the Minister of the Interior. He took authority under this Bill even to deal with their drains, their pipes, and water, and butchers’ shops and all the rest of it. Already they saw throughout the Union that the Provincial Councils and the Administrators were getting their backs up. As far as he could read the Bill, it was simply bristling with trouble for the future. The greatest epidemic that threatened the country was an epidemic of discontent from one end of the Union to the other unless another way was found of dealing with public health. Again, as to the Epidemic Comimttees. On such committees the local authorities ought to be well represented, as they were to be called upon to pay at least half of the cost and to discharge certain costly functions. There were also serious objections to section 11, which dealt with local authorities in default. The trouble he foresaw was that the provisions of the Bill would put almost all the local authorities in default owing to the imperfections in the machinery the Minister was creating. He regretted that the Minister should have placed his reputation in jeopardy by bringing in a Bill of such a defective nature. The Minister was supposed to be a perfect demon for work, to be insatiable. Generally the work was right well done, but at the same time they had seen during the last month or two that even his 50 horsepower was a little deserting him. He had shifted from himself the whole responsibility of the Mines Department, had taken up the big subject of defence in all its difficulties, in all its ramifications, and in all its importance, and he would probably find a little too much in these matters without taking so much upon himself in matters of public health. He thought that the Minister would be well advised to withdraw the measure and to bring in a new Bill dealing with matters that were urgent, and to let the important question of public health stand over for at least a session.

associated himself with the hon. member for Paarl in regard to the apathy of the House on the discussion of such an important matter as public health. There were apparently counter-attractions Rosebank way. If the House were discussing scab, rinderpest, or gal-sickness the benches opposite would probably be filled. (Opposition laughter.) It would nor be inappropriate for him to quote an old couplet:

(Laughter.) He was disappointed with his old friend the Minister for the Interior, especially as there had been such a halo round his head during the last few daysowing to the brilliant manner in which he had handled the subject of defence. In that matter the Minister had taken the best expert advice, but in regard to public health he had given a rehash of a measure introduced last year, and these people engaged in the culinary art informed him that rehashes were very unpalatable dishes. That Bill had not received favour from any section of the community. He had been a member of a deputation that waited on the Minister and represented the views of the medical profession, and he would like the House and the Minister to appreciate this, that when the medical profession throughout South Africa were advocating a measure for public health throughout the country it was not through selfish motives. The same could not be said in regard to all laws. The object of a Public Health Bill was to diminish disease and misery in the country. The Minister might be induced to take a more generous view of the medical profession. Probably on account of the robustness of his own health the Minister was quite unfitted to deal with this subject. (Laughter.) The Minister had told them that he was rushing the Bill through the House because he was seized with a panic over certain incidents in Natal. Nothing had occurred to occasion alarm. Fortunately, plague was one of the most controllable of disease. On account of a few rats in Natal having contracted plague and on account of a few coolies having died, the Minister wished them to treat public health in a manner that would be disastrous for many years to come. Most hon. members would be willing to spend a whole day to assist the Minister in getting an enabling measure to deal with the plague. The opinion of the hon. member for Victoria West always carried weight with the Minister. Last session, during the debate on what was practically the same Bill, the right hon. member was reported to have said: “He approved of the measure, and yet had not a good word to say for one of the clauses. Now, to call this a Public Health Bill seemed to be tampering with the House.” Proceeding he assured the Minister that there was much opposition to the measure on his own side of the House. He dwelt on the extend of the Minister’s duties. Although he did not wish to say anything disparaging he thought that the Minister was constitutionally unfit to deal with the subject. The hon. member for Victoria West was a most acceptable Minister of Mines, and for this reason—that he had a strong tactful, reliable, and resourceful head of the Mines Department. The present measure was a very perfunctory one. It pleased no one ; it would not please the Provincial authorities, and it certainly did not please the medical authorities throughout South Africa. Perhaps he was wrong in saying that it pleased no one, because it pleased the Minister himself. (Laughter.) The care of the health of the people should form a portion of the duties of the State, and the defence of the health of the people was as important as the defence of territory. The Minister of the Interior had introduced a most comprehensive defence scheme, in which he made provision for certain hypothetical enemies. Had the Minister ever grasped what tuberculosis was doing in South Africa? Or was he waiting for the report of the Tuberculosis Commission, which, if he had had a proper Public Health Department, there would have been no necessity to appoint. At Victoria West the coloured death-rate from tuberculosis and diseases of the chest was 39.6 per thousand per annum, which was greater than the mortality on the Rand mines, of which they heard so much. It would be a very bloody war indeed, which would lessen the population to that extent. We should attend to things at our own doorsteps rather than make costly preparations for hypothetical enemies. In the British Islands, on account of paying attention to public health, not so much in the way of actual administrative Acts, but in the way of teaching the people, the death-rate in the last 25 years had been reduced from 20 to 15 per thousand per annum. In Australia, during the same period, the death-rate had been brought down from 15 to 10 per thousand, and in Germany from 25 to 18 per thousand. What a saving in misery, suffering and money these figures represented! They were not demanding anything revolutionary, but the creation of a Public Health Department in reality and not in name alone. The only objection the Minister had to the creation of a strong Public Health Department was that he could not find a man. There had been the gravest dissatisfaction with the Minister’s office in regard to the administration of public health matters; and as long as present conditions continued, and they would continue under the present Bill, the medical officer of health would be a sort of flunkey to one of the Secretaries of the Department, and that would be an intolerable position.

The hon. member went on to refer to such medical men as Johan van Riebeek, Dr. Livingstone, Dr. Ramsbottom, the right hon. member for Albany, and the hon. member for Queen’s Town, and the services they had rendered. The right hon. member for Albany had conducted the affairs of the Cape Colony to the satisfaction of the majority of the population, and when he had been in practice, he was a most able practitioner. He (the hon. member) had come across people in his locality whose sole distinction was that they had been the right hon. member’s earliest patients. (Laughter.) They wanted the Minister to take a proper view of that matter and listen to the views of the medical men of South Africa; listen to the views of municipalities, and create a Public Health Department. The hon. member went on to refer to clause 13. and said that there was not the slightest likelihood of the disease mentioned there (yellow fever) being introduced into South Africa ; and it showed how much the Minister knew about those matters. The other year he had allowed a man suffering from sleeping sickness to be dumped down at Beaufort West, where he had died, and they had not taken the precaution to dis infect the house where the death occurred. That showed the necessity there was for some strong Executive Department to deal with the public health of the Union. He moved an amendment that the order for the second reading be discharged, and that the subject matter be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report, with an instruction to bring up a report not later than the 9th proximo.

in seconding, said that he had read in one of the local papers some time ago that the Public Health Bill introduced into Parliament last session was one of the “slaughtered innocents.” He did not agree with that, and thought that it had deserved its fate. If the Minister tried to carry that Bill through in its present form, he thought it would come to a similar fate. It seemed to abolish the Medical Officers of Health for the Cape, the Orange Free State, and Natal, and sought to transfer the powers which had hitherto been reposed in these officers into the hands of the Minister himself. He did not base his objection to taking these powers under his consideration ; but from his past experience of the Minister’s administration of that department in the Transvaal. They had taken exception then to the meagre support given to those who investigated human diseases, as compared with the support given to those who investigated cattle diseases, not that he objected to the support given to the latter.

Continuing, the hon. member said: Let them take the case of miners’ phthisis. He thought that the gravity of the disease had been brought home to every hon. member in that House, and he put it that if they had had a proper Department of Health in the Transvaal, steps would have been taken long ere this to stem the mortality. There was another and more loathsome disease, which in the past few years had made enormous headway; indeed, in some parts of the Transvaal, 50 per cent. of the people were affected. It was a standing menace to every person in the country, and it was a disease that must be tackled at once. It must be tackled from a national standpoint. Last year he brought before the House a motion urging the Government to establish a Department of Public Health. That was not adopted, but what was adopted was a resolution that a Department of Public Health should be created. If that was an attempt on the part of the Minister to give effect to the wish of that hon. House, then it was a ghastly failure, and he thought that the Minister should respectfully stand aside and let others bring forward a more worthy measure. He asked the Government to give effect to the resolution of the House, and create a Department of Public Health. From his intimate knowledge of the requirements of the country, he came to the House that day and made the request in the name and cause of humanity.

said that that afternoon they had witnessed the spectacle of medical men advancing different opinions. The hon. member for Paarl had said that disease was the cause of poverty. He (the speaker) had said “Hear, hear,” but had misunderstood the hon. member for Paarl, who should rather have said that poverty was the direct cause of disease. Referring to tuberculosis, the hon. member said that a Royal Commission in England had come to the conclusion that contaminated milk had a lot to do with the spread of the disease, and alluded to the fact that no mention of this aspect of the case had been made in the course of the debate. He referred to various causes, and said that it was not sufficient to merely attack the symptoms. They had to go deeper, and attack the causes of the disease. Continuing, he drew the attention of hon. members to miners’ phthisis. He alluded to the remarks of the hon. member for Boksburg, and said that that gentleman was one of the few hon. members on the Opposition side of the House who had supported preventive measures to minimise this disease. He noticed how little they were prepared to spend on matters affecting the public health. They were constantly told they were on the right track when they mentioned the nationalisation of the milk supply and the proper housing of the working classes, but the country had no money to carry out the work. But they found that when the matter dealt with was property—land and stock—they had full benches, long speeches, and money available. He found they were prepared to spend, roughly, three times as much on stock diseases as on public health. That appeared to him to be a scandal. If they wanted a healthy people, they had to attend to this matter. He noticed, further, in connection with the police and prisons, that they were prepared to spend a sum in the neighbourhood of two millions to catch and keep criminals. Money spent in order to improve public health would also improve public morals, and would enable them to curtail a good deal of the expense on police and prisons. They were beginning at the wrong end by attempting to cure disease instead of preventing it. He hoped in the Select Committee something would be done to take away the causes of disease, poverty, vice, and crime so rampant in the country.

said he wanted to point out to the House the differences in the power invested in a Minister of the Cape and the powers proposed to be given to the Union Minister now. He wanted to show that as long as the Act of Union stood, he was perfectly ; convinced the hon. Minister was wrong in bringing in an Act like this, over-riding municipalities under the general Act, or, like his own, under a special Act. Under the Bill the Minister could interfere with municipalities to an enormous extent, to a degree which he did not think the House would allow. Under the Municipal Act of East London, the Council had authority to do certain things: to make sewers and drains ; but not satisfied with that, the Minister would compel them, if he liked, to alter their sewers and drains and sanitary methods. He would not say he was likely to do that, but he (the hon. member had had to do with departments, and knew that departmental officers did come to a Minister and say he Lad better do something out of the common. He had also repealed a clause which was of the greatest service to the Cape—the clause which gave power to the Advisory Officers. He thought the attention of the House should be drawn to the careful manner in which they limited under former Acts the powers of the Ministers. The Cape had two Acts, and under the Act of 1885, section 8, laid down that if any local authority failed to enforce any regulations laid down in the preceding clause the Governor could interfere, and, if necessary, authorise expenditure up to £100, but anything further only with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. The Minister now proposed to do away with those limitations. The country had been well governed hitherto within these limitations. Therefore, he made two points. The first was that he believed this was against the letter of the Act of Union, in that the Minister took power to over-ride municipalities who were governed by Acts of Parliament, that could only be altered by the Provincial Councils Then he made the point that the Minister was taking excessive powers—powers which they were unaccustomed to in this Province, and powers which were entirely unnecessary, and far above what he thought Parliament should grant. (Opposition cheers.)

said he would like to press home the point as to the abolition, one might almost call it of self-government in the Cape Province when it came to a question of public health When it was a question of some general epidemic it was quite proper that the Government should be able to step in in regard to something which affected the whole of South Africa, and was not confined to any particular locality, and in that case the Government took to itself the power of charging the local authorities with one-half. But, when it came to interfering with the local authority in any particular locality, the Government had now taken to itself by this Bill the power to interfere when it pleased and make the local authority pay the whole bill. That seemed to him to be a subversal of all the principles of local self-government. (Hear, hear.) Under this Bill, the Government had power to interfere in every possible respect, whether it was a smell in a sewer which the assistant medical officer of health might think injurious to public health, or whether it was a matter of a local epidemic. It seemed to him that, quite apart from this, they would be landing themselves into an extraordinary mixed-up labyrinth of legislation. Under the Act of Union, the proper body to deal with legislation in regard to local authorities was the Provincial Councils. The Government, he would submit, should not deal with any matters of public health, except, of course, those affecting the general interests of the whole of the Union, and should not deal with affairs and matters which merely affected local authorities. What might they come to? They might have the Provincial Councils passing their own Ordinances with regard to municipalities. They had the Minister, under the present Bill, taking powers upon himself to interfere with whatever was done, and they had the local authority trying to carry out the duties imposed upon it, according to the means of the local ratepayers. They had got the Provincial Councils passing laws, they had got that House passing laws, and they had got the local body at the mercy of—whom? Both the Provincial Council and this House. He thought the powers given to the Minister under this Bill were far too wide, and an improper interference with the powers of the local Provinces, which had been given to them under the Act of Union.

said he would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Denver. He would take one or two illustrations which showed the urgent necessity for a department of public health. There was the question of miners’ phthisis. It was indubitable that there had not been a satisfactory department of public health, or that scourge would have been tackled before it had assumed such frightful dimensions. Then there was also the question of the health of school children. That, be thought, was a matter which concerned the whole nation. In regard to the question of having a medical man as head of the department, he thought that if they had a medical officer at the head who would not require to be prompted by the Minister, it would probably result in a great many of these dangers being dealt with before they attained any great dimensions. He would strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

admitted that the debate had not been very favourable to the Bill. He had explained, in moving the second reading that there was considerable urgency for the Bill, and of course that urgency had increased since then. The plague at Durban was spreading to rather an alarming extent, and hon. members who thought that the case could be met by simply reenacting the old Natal Act, which had lapsed, were mistaken. (Cheers.) Even that Act of 1901 did not give them the powers they desired in order to deal with this outbreak. So that the new Bill would have to be passed, and if there were any objectionable clauses in the present Bill he was quite prepared to discuss them on their merits. But he must impress upon the House the extreme gravity that action should be taken. They should take power at a very early date to deal with the out-break, and to take steps to prevent it spreading to other parts of the Union. A good deal of the criticism raised against the Bill seemed to have been based on the idea that somehow or other he was not in sympathy with medical gentlemen. His hon. friend the member for Denver, who had addressed the House with his usual ability, seemed to be obsessed with this idea, that medical men were great administrators, and that he (the Minister) had a poor opinion of them. He had no grievance whatever against medical men. On the contrary, he had the highest opinion of them. But hon. members who had dealt with administrative questions would agree with him very largely that it was not usual to find that high scientific aptitude and ordinary administrative ability which was required for such a post as medical gentlemen opposite pressed for. Very often the good administrator was a thoroughly commonplace individual. That was the experience of mankind. Very often the brilliant man, the man with brilliant intellectual ability, was not a good administrator, because his mind ran into a groove, and he was not the person to deal with ordinary administrative questions. That had been their experience not in regard to the medical profession alone, but in regard to other professions. The question had often been discussed, what should be the relation of expert public servants to the ordinary administration of the country? And he thought there was a very large consensus of opinion all over the world that the expert in Government employ should be an adviser, and that the ordinary administration of public duties should be entrusted to other channels. He understood that the hon. member for East London agreed with him in that. It would be wrong to have an administrative department of public health such as the hon. member for Woodstock proposed. It seemed to him that, apart from the view of medical gentlemen opposite that he was obsessed with some feeling against them, there was no argument really on this question. Let them put that entirely aside. They could not have an administrative department of public health in the Union. He did not think that such a department would be sanctioned by the House. It would be a great expense. It would be an experiment, and it would be an experiment which was against the experience of this country. We had had these administrative departments before, and they had not been particularly successful. That being so, he felt that the only course they could adopt was that now proposed. He was not prepared to establish officers of health in the old Colonies. They had their voice already. The officer of health of the old Cape Colony did not exist any more, and the same was the case in the other Colonies. They had all been abolished and their places taken by an advisory officer of health for the Union.

You got rid of them. (Opposition laughter.)

Yes. Proceeding, he said hon. members opposite seemed to be under the impression that he wished to forge an instrument in this Bill wherewith to kill these gentlemen, whereas they were dead already. (Ministerial laughter.) The hon. member for Woodstock and the hon. member Queenstown said he had made some wrong arrangement in not letting such advice as came from the Assistant Medical Officers of Health be given to him through the Medical Officer of Health for the Union. They said he would have a plethora of advisers, and be like a certain lady and her lovers, and in the confusion of counsels the administration of the country would suffer. Surely it would be wrong for him to lay down in the Bill that any expert advice which might be given by these various Officers of Health should only come to him through the Medical Officer for the Union. Take the case which now arose. For nearly half of every year the Medical Officer for the Union was at the seat of Government in the Transvaal, while the Minister was in Cape Town. Was he to debar himself in this Bill from consulting direct with his assistant in Cape Town and only take advice from him through the circuitous process of the post and telegraph to Pretoria. Surely there was no sense in that! Therefore, the Bill did not lay down that advice should only come through the Medical Officer for the Union. The argument was raised that the Medical Officer for the Union would be under an under-secretary in his department, and would not exercise the influence and authority which he should. He had largely explained, and perhaps hon. members opposite had accepted his statement, that the Medical Officer of Health for the Union would, as hitherto, have direct access to the Minister, and would consult with the Minister on any point that might arise. There was no question of belittling the status of this officer. The only point settled in the Bill was that his position should be advisory, and that he should not himself be an executive officer. As soon as they gave such an officer executive functions they had the kind of trouble which the hon. member for Zululand explained arose in Natal. It was there found necessary to have a Board largely of a lay character to water down the extreme administration to which he might resort. That showed how wrong it would be to appoint merely this medical expert and entrust him with executive duties, because he might go too far. Far better to let the responsibility rest on the Department of the Interior. He thought that part of the objection might be set aside. The further objection was raised that here was an infringement of the jurisdiction exercised by local authorities and Provincial authorities. (Mr. JAGGER: Hear, hear.) He did not think there was much in that objection. Let them take first the local authorities. There was no interference with the authority of these local bodies. The existing Health Acts of the various parts of the Union were maintained—(hear, hear)—and the local authorities would continue to exercise their jurisdiction as heretofore.

Then you overlap.

said there was one case in which the Government assumed authority to see that local bodies were carrying out their duties. That was in clause 11. Under the Cape Act the Government could step in in cases of default; for instance, in the suppression of nuisances and the preservation of public health. If there was an unwholesome smell in a municipality and it was not suppressed by the local body, Government could step in and suppress that smell. Under the Cape Act the central Government had wide power to interfere in case a local authority did not do its duty—even in trivial matters. In the Bill, under clause 11, the Union Government could only step in in case the public health of any locality was seriously endangered. Thus Government had narrowed the ground of action on which it could interfere. He thought the power given to the Union Government was far narrower than the power taken by the central Government under the Cape Act. It was deliberately intended not to extend the power which Government had under the Cape Act. The hon. member for East London had said that there was a limitation in the Cape Act under which the financial liability of the local authority was limited.

It was not.

That is a minor point on which hon. members, if they have any amendments to bring forward, can do so. Now I come to the question of our breaking the Constitution, and interfering with authority which might be said to belong to the Provincial authorities. That is a matter of very considerable importance. Proceeding, General Smuts said there were two trends of opinion in this country. The one was the trend of opinion among medical men, who were for a central department of public health, and who were opposed to the whittling away of the authority of that department and giving it to the Provincial authorities. The other view was that the Provinces should have a great deal to say about public health. It seemed to him that the Bill provided a solution for both these difficulties. In the Bill they said that the Union Government would deal with large epidemics which might affect the whole Union. Clause 13 was really the basis of the Bill. When they had a large epidemic breaking out, whether in the rural areas or in that of a local authority, the central authority, that is the Union Government, might step in. (An HON. MEMBER: “How about the expenses?”) The expenses were also dealt with on a certain basis. He believed that the hon. member for the South Peninsula (Mr. Runciman) said that in that case it might be easy to override the local authority, but he did not see that there was any danger of that being done by any Government in that country—or had the hon. member become suspicious when his own friends were in power? (Laughter.) In Durban they had constituted a Health Committee, half being nominees of the Municipalities and the other half being Government nominees, over whom presided the Chief Magistrate of Durban, and the committee were doing most excellent work under the defective law under which they were at present struggling. No Government would dream of passing over the local authority, and he thought that the local authority would be the first body consulted. There was another class of case where they should not interfere, and should leave to the Provincial Council; and he had done so, even against the advice of medical men The Municipalities had to deal with public health and frame bye-laws which went to the Provincial Council and were dealt with there, and the Union Government should in no case interfere with that—the ordinary administration of public health, except where there were these larger epidemics which arose from time to time. As to clause 11, if hon. members wanted to limit him still further, he would be prepared to discuss it with them when they went into committee; but all he was prepared to do was to carry out the ideas expressed in clause 13. If a Municipality refused to take certain steps for the public health, the Government could step in, in order to make them do so, but only in case of such dereliction of duty as would be a serious menace or danger to the public health. Hon. members would see that clause 11 was an integral part of clause 13. He thought that the opposition to that Bill was not well founded. One said he had not gone far enough, and should have established an administrative department of public health. He did not think it was in the interest of the country and of public health to establish such a department. The other point was on constitutional grounds, and that he was trenching on the jurisdiction of the Provincial Councils and local authorities. He had not the least intention of doing so; and, in his opinion, it was perfectly clear that the Union Government should confine itself to large matters, and not to the small minor matters which might arise in the municipalities. Some hon. members went much further, and said that they objected because that was not a proper Public Health Bill, and they wanted a measure to deal with miners phthisis, tuberculosis, medical inspection of schools, and a thousand and one other things which ought to be properly dealt with by a Public Health Bill. He had not the slightest intention of introducing such a Bill just now, as the time was not ripe for it. A number of matters were now being investigated, and he would be sorry to attempt to introduce, either this year or the following year, a good Public Health Bill for the Union. They had to gather much experience yet and await the results of some of these Commissions now sitting. The day was coming when, he admitted, they would have to pass a comprehensive Public Health Act, and he agreed with the hon. member for Denver (Dr. Macaulay) that, from certain points of view public health was more important than defence. They would have to have certain powers to-day, however, and he asked the House to give him those powers which was a fair demand to make, and it would be well not to shelve the matter as they would by adopting the amendment of the hon. member for Denver.

put the question, that the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. member for Denver stand part of the motion, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

asked for Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the following points: (1) Whether the recommendation in the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions is not in conflict with Rule No. 250 of the Standing Rules and Orders, inasmuch as it recommends relief to which the petitioner is not entitled ; and (2) whether the House by adopting the resolution will not thereby be originating a resolution for the appropriation of public revenue in contravention of section 62 of the South Africa Act, under which such appropriation must first be recommended by message from the Governor-General?

The point involved in the question raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Orr) is extremely important, and one which engaged my most serious consideration during last session. I then went into the question as to the interpretation to be placed upon section 62 of the South Africa Act in regard to motions and proceedings initiating expenditure. With reference to the first question put by the hon. member as to whether the recommendation of the report of the Select Committee is in conflict with Rule No. 250, I may point out that the petition as presented to the House was quite in order, but I will deal with the question of expenditure which is raised in both the points put to me by the hon. member. As hon. members are aware, section 80 of the Constitutional Ordinance of the late Colony of the Cape of Good Hope provided “that it shall not be lawful for the House of Assembly … to pass, or for the Governor to assent to, any Bill appropriating to the public service any sum of money from or out of Her Majesty’s revenue within the said Colony, unless the said Governor, on Her Majesty’s behalf, shall first have recommended to the House of Assembly to make provision for the specific public service towards which such money is to be appropriated. …” Standing Order No. 147 of the late Cape House of Assembly was adopted in 1889, and provides that “the House will not proceed upon any motion or Bill for granting any public money … unless recommended from the Governor on Her Majesty’s behalf.” Notwithstanding the foregoing provision in the Cape Constitution and the terms of the Standing Order referred to, the Pensions Committee was deliberately set up by the late Cape House of Assembly in 1892, and continued to act until Union took place ; and this practice was permitted by four Speakers of the late Cape House of Assembly. While the language of the South Africa Act is very explicit, the terms of the rule quoted restricted the power of the House in initiating money resolutions to a limit practically as narrow as that laid down by the Act. ‘The Standing Orders of the late" Cape House of Assembly and by implication also the practice of the late Cape House of Assembly, govern at present the proceedings of this House. It may also be pointed out that under the practice of the late Cape House of Assembly a Select Committee on Waste Lands had operated in a similar manner to the Pensions Committee from 1888 until the date of Union. I may say at once that in my opinion the practice set up by the late Cape House of Assembly in regard to the Pensions Committee was in conflict both with the Constitution and the Standing Order, but that course was no doubt dictated by the convenience of the House for dealing with the matters which it was found necessary in the first instance to delegate to that committee. This practice was, in regard to both the committees referred to, deliberately confirmed by this House Last year and again this session, and the point now raised by the hon. member should more properly have been raised when the Pensions Committee was moved for last year. Under all the circumstances I am not prepared now to rule the proceedings in regard to the proposed pension to Mr. Van Renen out of order, and must leave the question of a reversal of the practice to the decision of the House. At the same time, it would be quite a simple matter for the Government to cure the irregularity by announcing the Governor-General’s recommendation to the proposed expenditure, but this, of course, would not meet the objection raised by the hon. member; and I may add that after carefully going into this question last year, I came to the conclusion that unless the House ordered otherwise, the practice of the late Cape House of Assembly in not requiring the Governor’s recommendation would be continued in regard to such matters as (a) the reference of petitions by members to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities, (b) the reference of papers and reports by Ministers to the Select Committee on Waste Lands, (c) Bills brought up by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, such as unauthorised expenditure Bills, (d) Bills introduced by an order of this House, and (e) resolutions dealing with what may be termed “House matters.” I further decided then that, subject to an order by the House to the contrary, I would continue to allow the practice which obtained in the late Cape House of Assembly, and which obtains in the English House of Commons, of accepting for discussion motions and resolutions touching expenditure, but couched in general terms.

said that after the very important ruling given by the Speaker, he would move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order to give the Government an opportunity of considering the important ruling of the Speaker, and making some recommendation to the House theren. (VOICES: “No.”)

The motion was negatived.

explained that there had been a good deal of misconception as to the reason why this matter came before Parliament. The reason why Van Renen’s case came before Parliament appeared from the Civil Service Act of 1895 (section 27). Once the Minister made up his mind to dismiss Van Renen, after the inquiry, the Government no longer had any power to grant a pension. He did think that of all the various things that the Minister could have done, he had chosen the most drastic. He did not think the Minister did it with the idea of depriving Van Renen of his pension. The Divisional Inspector who tried the matter found that, as to the chargee made by the subordinate, there was nothing in them. In regard to the charges brought by the attorneys, the Divisional Inspector found there was something in them. But he thought those who had read the papers would agree with him that, although they possibly rendered it very undesirable, in fact, almost impossible, for Van Renen to remain at Burghersdorp as Magistrate, they were not of such a character as to prevent him from remaining in the service. There were eight courses open, and the last and most extreme penalty provided was dismissal. Seeing that, as far as they knew, this was the first time any such charge had been made against Van Renen, and that he had nearly 37 years’ service, any fair-minded man would admit, he urged, that, even if he were guilty of everything alleged against him, the punishment did not fit the crime at all, but went far beyond anything that was charged. (Ministerial cheers.) If he had been allowed to complete his term in the service, he would have been entitled to a pension of nearly double the amount now proposed by the committee. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. Alexander) thought the House would be well advised to accept the pension recommended by the Select Committee. Mr. Van Renen seemed to have been guilty of nothing worse than indiscretions.

thought that now the papers had been tabled it would be as well for him to give his opinion. No useful purpose would be served in discussing all the facts of the case over the floor of the House. The position he had taken up was this. He had from the first strongly sympathised with the official, but it was necessary in the interests of the service, and in view of the fact that there were three or four hundred magistrates in the country, that an example should be made. This may have been severe, but it was necessary. It was the more incumbent on this official in view of the responsible position he held—for one thing he was at the head of the police in his district;—that he should have conducted himself creditably. At the same time, he made it clear then that although the Government could not grant a pension there was an appeal to Parliament, and that in the House he would take up a neutral position, and say nothing either by way of recommendation or otherwise. It could not be said that anything unjust had taken place.

said this case seemed to introduce new elements of objectionableness when compared with previous similar cases that had come before the committee. His objection to the whole practice of the grant of pensions by the House was that the House could not deal with one-hundredth part of the cases just as deserving as the present one. Here they had an entirely different matter. Here they sat as a Court of Review upon the Government. (Cheers.)

Why not?

said that the executive authority of the country had declared that this official was no longer fit to carry on his duties. They might have reprimanded him. They might have transferred him. They might have dismissed him. They decided that nothing but dismissal would meet the justice of the case. The chairman of the committee told them that he entirely agreed with that decision, and hon. members who read the papers would come to the same conclusion. That act of the Government carried with it deprivation of his pension. Now by a side wind the case came up for review and they were asked to go into this point and that point to see whether certain charges were supported or not by the evidence. He did not know of any function that the House was less fitted to discharge than that. Severity, as the Minister said, was a hard thing to exercise, but it was necessary, especially where a large service was being dealt with. But it was not severity that people would object to so much as injustice. And injustice was done in a case like this, because out of 100 men who suffered the same punishment for a similar or lesser offence, 90 of them had no remedy. Ten perhaps had powerful friends at Court, and were known to the sportsmen of the Western Province. Therefore the system of allowing a man to bring his case because he happened to have a social position, and was widely known, was a system of injustice. Parliament could not be a court of general review. It would be a court of partial review only. Since it could only deal with a few cases, it ought not to deal with any at all Take the case of the other man involved in this matter. When the inspector found grave irregularities not only the magistrate, but the chief clerk suffered. The same penalty, he thought justly, overtook them both. The latter had twenty years service. Was the decision of the Government going to be open to review in his case? He knew, personally, cases of men in a much humbler position who, for a much less serious offence than proved here, had lost their positions their claim to a pension, and were fined £50 or £60—their contributions to a superannuation fund. Those cases never came before the House. The Western Province sportsmen had never heard of them. They were not great social lights in this town or Province, and petitions had never come to the House on their behalf. There was only one body fit to deal with cases of that kind, the executive Government of the country. The House was swayed by such arguments as that some hon. members knew the individual concerned, while others thought that the case was a hard one. He was far from saying that these were not very creditable feelings, but the House was not fit to deal with these cases, because it could not do so impartially. If the House adopted the report it would be doing something which would upset the whole basis of the Civil Service, and lead its members to think that as long as they played up to the House or made themselves popular their cases would be very lightly dealt with in the event of misconduct.

said he had come to the conclusion that Mr. Van Renen had been very harshly dealt with. They should consider these cases not from a sympathetic point of view, but from the point of view of justice. The evidence was not strong enough to justify the manner in which Mr. Van Renen had been dealt with. There was a great deal of evidence to disprove the charges that had been brought against him. There were three charges—intemperance, improper conduct, and irresponsibility and incompatibility. On the third charge he was found not guilty by the inspector. It was said that he was drunk because at a dinner when the King’s health was drunk he sang "God Save the Queen” instead of “God Save the King,” a slip which frequently was made. One of the witnesses—a Mr. Tennant—was on bad terms with Mr. Van Renen, and did not associate with him.

moved that the pension be reduced from £250 to £249.

The motion was negatived.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

The motion was carried.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.