from the Incorporated Law Societies of the Cape, Transvaal, O.F.S., and Natal, for leave to introduce a private Bill to unify and consolidate the Incorporated. Law Societies of South Africa.

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

from inhabitants of Luckhoff, Orange Free State, praying that J. Koonin, a certified doctor in medicine by a Russian university, be permitted to practise within the Union.

from H. T. Driver, chief clerk, Commissioner’s Office, Robben Island.

from V. H. Begley, retired officer, South African Railways.

for the present system of Field-cornets to be re placed by the system which obtained under the Republican Government.

from residents of Winburg and Senekal, O.F.S., for extension of the Lindley Road-Senekal Railway to Marquard.

brought up the report of the Examiners on the petition of Peter Davis (Chairman) and Horace Read Carruthers (General Manager), of the Natal Bank, Limited, having its head office in Pietermaritzburg, Natal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal and reenact with amendments the private law of the Province of Natal, dated 3rd day of August, 1866, relating to the Natal Bank, now incorporated under the name of The Natal Bank (Limited) :

Your Examiners beg to report that they have examined the proofs of publication submitted, as well as the petition and the Bill attached thereto, and the Bill deposited with the Clerk of the House, and find: (1) That notices of intention to apply for leave to introduce the Bill were published in the “Gazette,” and in the “Natal Mercury” and “Natal Witness” (newspapers circulating in the Province affected), once a week for four consecutive weeks during the months of January and February, 1912; that they contain a true statement of the general objects of the Bill, and state that a copy of the Bill will be deposited with the Clerk of the House on or before the last day of February, 1912. (2) That the petition contains a true statement of the general objects of the Bill. (3) That the Bill is similar in all respects to that deposited with the Clerk of the House on the 20th February, 1912, and contains a declaration to that effect by the Parliamentary agents. Your Examiners have further specially to report that the reason for the presentation of the petition after the thirtieth day of the session was due to some misconception on the part of the Parliamentary agent as to the precise meaning of Standing Rules and Orders Nos. 340 and 361, he being under the impression that the petition could only be presented, at the earliest, on the 1st March. Your Examiners therefore recommend that in this instance indulgence be granted. In all other respects your Examiners have to report that the rules of the House have been complied with.

moved that the indulgence be granted, in terms of the report.

This was agreed to.

Indulgence was accordingly granted.

Return showing extent of land thrown open for prospecting for water under Act No. 42 of 1908 (Cape), in Kenhardt and Gordonia ; number of applications received and granted; number of applicants who have been successful in finding water, and have applied for the land about their wells ; and other particulars; and reports of the Department of Lands and of the several offices of the Surveyors-General and Registrars of Deeds, for periods ending on the last of December, 1910.

Before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, I wish to call attention to Order No. 4—second reading, Native Disputes Bill. This Bill was introduced into the Senate and transmitted to this House for concurrence on the 14th ultimo. Paragraph (f) of clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Governor General may make rules “as to fees of office to be imposed for services performed in and about the hearing and determination of any dispute and the issue of any order under this Act.” These fees, though imposed for services performed, will flow into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and must be regarded in the nature of a tax, so that the proceedings for their imposition fall within the provisions of section 60 of the South Africa Act. The Bill was very properly introduced into the Senate, but the paragraph referred to constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House, and should not have formed part of the Bill when it was transmitted to this House for concurrence. I would suggest that the privileges of the House of Assembly would have been safeguarded if the paragraph in question had been placed within brackets, and a footnote inserted indicating that the paragraph did not form part of the Bill. In view of the explicit wording of the South Africa Act, I am unable to recommend that the House of Assembly should waive its privileges in this matter ; indeed, I scarcely think it has the power to do so; and I may point out that to give the Senate this right would mean that that body could initiate legislation which the House of Assembly could initiate only by a special procedure. It is clear to me that the Senate went not only beyond the terms of the South Africa Act, but went further also than the precedents in the British Parliament, and the House of Assembly should therefore not accept the Bill in its present form. I must therefore rule that the first reading of the Bill and the order for the second reading must be discharged, and that the Bill be returned to the Senate with a request that the provision referred to be omitted or bracketed as already indicated.

read the following message to the Senate :

The House of Assembly herewith returns to the Honourable the Senate the Bill “to facilitate the settlement, in accordance with native custom, of certain disputes between natives,” which was transmitted by the Honourable the Senate to the House of Assembly for concurrence on the 14th ultimo. Paragraph (f) of clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Governor-General may make rules “as to fees of office to be imposed for services performed in and about the hearing and determination of any dispute and the issue of any order under this Act.” These fees, though imposed for services performed, will flow into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and paragraph (f) of clause 6 must therefore be regarded as a provision imposing taxation which shall originate only in the House of Assembly as laid down by section 60 of the South Africa Act. The House of Assembly therefore respectfully submits that the provision referred to should not have formed part of the Bill when it was transmitted by the Honourable the Senate for the concurrence of this House. The language of section 60 of the South Africa Act in regard to the point at issue is very explicit, and the House of Assembly feels that to waive its privilege in this matter would establish a precedent which must be regarded as a breach of the Act ; indeed, to concede to the Honourable the Senate the right to include in a Bill originating in that House a provision such as paragraph (f) of clause 6 would mean that the Honourable the Senate could initiate, without any restriction, in a Bill a provision which could originate in the House of Assembly only after the observance of a special procedure ; but even if it were possible to construe the provisions of the South Africa Act in the light of the procedure which is followed in the British Parliament, the Honourable the Senate went further than the precedents in that Parliament. The House of Assembly, being most anxious to further and maintain the good relations which exist between it and the Honourable the Senate, is of opinion that that end can best be served by a strict adherence by both Houses to the terms of the South Africa Act. The House of Assembly respectfully submits that its privileges will be sufficiently safeguarded if the Honourable the Senate will cause the paragraph in question to be placed within brackets, and an explanatory footnote to be inserted, on the page of the Bill where the said provision occurs, to the effect that it does not form part of the Bill. The House of Assembly therefore trusts that the Honourable the Senate will either omit paragraph (f) of clause 6 or cause it to be placed within brackets in the manner already indicated.

said that this was a very important matter —(hear, hear)—and it was a pity that in this House they had not what was elsewhere known as a Committee of Privileges, but as an analogous committee they had the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. He should be chary to begin a quarrel with the Hon. the Senate on such a matter as this, and he thought they would be acting wisely if they considered this message a little more fully. He did not know whether Mr. Speaker would agree to this suggested message being placed upon the Votes and Proceedings, so that the House could consider it for another 24 hours, or even that the message might be referred to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. That course would be, he thought, the more advisable, but he was somewhat loth to enter into a quarrel with the Senate in a matter of this kind, and more especially as, looking at the minutes of the other place, he found that there was some considerable discussion upon the point there, and, while he did not dispute Mr. Speaker’s ruling at all, he thought it would be well if they took a little more time to consider the matter.

said he thought the intention when the clause in the South Africa Act was drawn up was that all taxation should originate with this House, but whether that would bar the Senate from putting a clause in the Bill to provide for certain services to be performed and certain fees of office to be charged, he was not quite clear in his own mind that that did actually trespass against the clause as it stood. He would like to hear the Minister of Native Affairs on this point, as he was the Minister in charge of the Bill in the other House. He did think it would be well for them to consider the position for a short while, otherwise they might find themselves landed in an argument with the Senate which all of them, of course, wished to avoid. He took it they all of them understood that in this particular case there was no intention whatever on the part of the Senate to trespass on the rights and privileges of this House.

said it was a little difficult for them to enter upon a general discussion of this sort after Mr. Speaker had given them his view, and after there had been read the message he had prepared for transmission to the Senate, and in whatever he said he wanted to make it clear that he entirely agreed with the view expressed by hon. members opposite as to the undesirability of their entering upon any quarrel with the Senate in a hurry or unnecessarily. But, at the same time, this matter was discussed in the Senate very fully. There was a sharp difference of opinion. The majority in favour of the course pursued was a small majority ; he thought the figures were 19 to 13. The President of the Senate gave his opinion—he preferred to do that rather than give a ruling—when the matter was referred to him that the Senate had not the power to insert this clause in the Bill. Of course, the question had arisen because of the Bill being in the first instance introduced in the Senate with this clause in it. It was pointed out to him by the Clerk of the Senate that this clause appeared to be in conflict with the powers of the Senate in regard to money matters, and a suggestion was made to him to adopt a certain course, as was adopted, he understood, day after day in the House of Lords. When Bills were introduced there and contained money clauses they were simply bracketed in red ink and the Bill was sent down with the clauses in red ink for the consideration of the House of Commons. He moved, when they came to this part of the Bill, that this clause should be omitted and should be directed for consideration by the Assembly. In doing so he explained to the Senate that, as far as he could gather, this was entirely a matter in connection with which there would be a payment made into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and there would be an appropriation of money to meet a particular call out on that fund, and that, as far as he could gather, they were outside the powers of the Senate under the Constitution. He did not think he could go further, except to say that there was a debate in the Senate on the point. The whole thing was discussed, fully discussed, and eventually there was a division by which, after the President’s opinion had been intimated to the House, a majority of 19 to 13 decided that the clause should stand. He only wished to say that, personally, he felt convinced that the Senate, as matters stood at present, had not got the power. Whether it was desirable or undesirable, whether it was satisfactory or unsatisfactory the power of the Senate was confined to the imposition of fines. He hoped that the House would transmit this message to the Senate.

The message was approved.

resumed the debate on the motion by Sir Lionel Phillips (Yeoville). The Speaker said he supported the motion. He thought that the discussion that had taken place had shown two things, and one was the natural corollary of the other. There was a considerable difference of opinion, both in the House and in the country, as to the powers and functions of the Board. That being so, he thought there was also a considerable feeling that steps should be taken by the Government, by means of legislation, to define the powers and rights of the Board, and settle the matter once and for all. There was no doubt that in many parts of the country there was a feeling that the Board, as it stood at the present time, was not a live body—that it was an advisory or dummy board, terms which he had heard used outside. He did not say that these terms were justified; the Minister of Railways thought these terms were not. There was no question at all that this was the feeling, and if that was the feeling then he thought the Minister must accept responsibility for the state of affairs. This was not the first time this matter had been brought to the notice of the House, for it was referred to several times during the last session. Last session the point was raised as to why the House had not had a full report from the Railway Board on the chief matters connected with the Railway Budget. Then the Minister of Railways and his colleagues took different views as to what was right. The Minister of Railways contended that no report was necessary, for the reason that the Board had only to report on questions that concerned new railway construction. The Minister of Native Affairs said that, in his opinion, no special report was necessary, because the railway estimates were in effect the report of the Board. Then the Minister of the Interior took a somewhat different view. He said that if they got a report from the Board it would bring the whole position of the Board into the arena of party politics. He did not see that the last contention was justified. They had reports from the Auditor-General, but because they got those reports the Auditor-General and his Department were not necessarily dragged into the arena of party politics. All they did get in the shape of reports were some perfunctory reports upon the construction of new lines which, although they concerned the expenditure, he believed, of a large sum of money, were not laid before the House until one or two days before the end of the session. The Minister had then said that that was all that was required from the Board. He thought the feeling of the country was that more was required from the Board, and he was inclined to think that even if the Minister had his own opinion he was not justified in maintaining that position by virtue of the words used in the Act of Union. Going by the minutes that were published and the Act as it stood, he thought it was difficult to quite discover what was in the minds of the framers of that clause. All they had got were the words of the Act of Union. Section 126 said that the “control and management of railways, ports and harbours of the Union shall be exercised through a Board.” He would probably be told by the other side that this was subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. That was so ; but he thought that to get the true meaning they must look to the subsequent portion of the section and subsequent clauses bearing on the matter. If one did that one could not come to any other conclusion than that this section was in the nature of a compromise, and, secondly, that this Board, though it was subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council, was not meant to be merely an advisory Board. The speaker went on to read the sections bearing on the question, and said he contended that if the Board had merely been appointed as an advisory Board these other sections could not have been inserted in the Act. He thought that the section represented a compromise between two forms of thought. Some had apparently wanted an independent Board, but it was clear from the words, “Subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council,” that this had not been the intention of the members of the Convention. He did not in any way agree that the control of the Board should be taken out of the hands of the Government, but he thought that it should be vested with greater powers. He did not want to go through the 2,500 sets of minutes that had been offered for perusal by the Minister of Railways. They did not want reports on matters of detail; but they did want to know what opinions and what advice the Board gave to the Minister on really important matters. There was, for instance, the question of the reduction of railway rates, and this was a matter on which the Board should advise. They in the North found last year that what reductions of rates had been made were in favour of the Cape Colony and Natal. They did not grumble at the fortunate position of these two Provinces, but those who came from the North said “Next time you must support us when we want relief.” They had a right to expect relief because the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of the Interior were pledged to support a reduction of rates for the benefit of the North, yet nothing had been done. But the point which he wished to make was: that this was most important for the whole population, and they would like to know what the opinion of the Board was on that matter—why, for example, they did not do what most people thought they would: reduce the Railway rates to the North? He believed they were entitled to expect some relief. He gathered from the hon. Minister’s speech that he was in sympathy with their requirements, and he (the speaker) hoped, when he introduced his own particular Budget, they would hear all about this, and would have their expectations satisfied. Then there was the question of the employment of a large number of white unskilled labourers. They found in a report that that was costing a sum of £45,000 in excess of what the work might have been done for. He was not going to discuss the policy of it ; but if a good many of these men were simply being employed as a matter of relief, then the whole country should participate in the cost. At the present time the railway was paying the bill, and the up-country people were paying the greater part of the bill. And they would like to know what the Board thought of that? Then there was the question of public works. Large public works were required in Johannesburg. But all he wished to ask for was that they should know what was the Board’s opinion on these very important matters. And he thought the Minister should give them some assurance without delay that he was going to bring in a Bill of the sort required, also without delay. Proceeding, the hon. gentleman quoted from a speech made by Mr. Andrew Johnston, chairman of the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, at the annual meeting of that institution. He said that to the best of his belief, Mr. Johnston was a political supporter of the Government, and therefore he did not suppose he would be accused of having made that speech to annoy his own friends. Mr. Johnston said that of one thing he was convinced in connection with the future railway policy, and that was: that the successful working of the railway depended very much on the institution of a strong Railway Board. He was well aware of the fact that some Board existed at present, but it looked very much as if that Board was playing into the hands of the Minister. The Minister necessarily had to devote a good deal of his time to Parliamentary work and a great deal of his other work had to be hung up. What they thought (proceeded Mr. Chaplin) was very much what Mr. Johnston said. They thought that the Board should be strong, and it should be responsible to Parliament. And that being the case, he thought the Minister would be well advised in his own interests to settle all those difficulties, clear up this matter, and define the duties and powers of the Board. It might be that their ideas of the Board were erroneous; it might be that the Minister was frequently at loggerheads with the Board, and that they frequently differed ; but they knew nothing about it, and they would like to know. The Minister plainly thought it was not his duty to do these things, and they wanted to have it made his duty by law. He believed there were many gentlemen on the other side of the House who would support that and he had confidence in the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who said last session, “it only showed the absolute necessity for an Act defining the duties of the Railway Board.” Therefore, he claimed his support on this matter. (Cheers.)

said he always listened with a great deal of pleasure to his hon. friend polished diction on the other side; but he could not say that he had been impressed, because he had by his remarks put that side to a great deal of pain. He spoke of the burdens of the North first of all and then he spoke of the intolerable burdens on the people whom he represented. Well, all he could say was that if he only exchanged a few of those burdens with us, he could assure him of a very favourable reception. They were the poor people who cultivated the soil and had a bitter time of it, and yet he came down to that House and talked about intolerable burdens upon himself and others. Well, he (the speaker) recognised cheerfully that this motion was introduced by a moderate and sensible speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, and he agreed with almost every word he said. (Opposition cheers.) He thought there were three things they wanted before they could get the Union into working order, and until they got them settled they would not be in working order. One was to have the Civil Service regulated by an Act of the Union Parliament. The other was to have local government established upon sound foundations, as was contemplated by the Act of Union, and the other, to have the management of the railways put on a satisfactory basis, also by an Act of the Union Parliament. All these things were contemplated in the Act of Union; in the charter from which they derived their existence, and until these things were settled they would always have a great deal of trouble. All of them had been alluded to that session. There was not a man in the House who knew anything about the Act of Union who did not feel that there was a great deal in what was said on the present motion, only they could not go to the full extent of saying that it was necessary to hurl a vote of censure upon the Government because they had not done all they could, although they regretted very much that things had not been carried out properly. But there might not have been time to do it. Certainly, in regard to local government, there had been a good deal of delay; but now the Government was doing a very sensible thing. It was conferring with the local authorities, and he hoped that a very great deal of good would result. He believed, also, that the Civil Servants were being dealt with. Then he thought that one of the most important things was dealing with this large undertaking which involved eighty or ninety million pounds’ worth of capital —eighty millions, he thought—and was managed now very well by his hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours, they would allow, but still there were no definite lines, and they did not know exactly where they were. Even the Capital was not yet settled upon, and all depended upon one clause in an Act of the Convention, which was only passed with the idea that it would come before Parliament in the shape of a Bill, where it would be properly discussed. In the interests of everybody and the Government it was very necessary that that should be done. He did not, therefore, differ from his hon. friend on the other side at all in that respect. When they talked of Australian lines they must be quite sure what they meant by it, because there were a good many Australian lines. There was one Government in Victoria which was driven by political pressure of the railway servants to put things under a Board. It was a non-political Board, and they had large powers. That Board had run the Government into the mud. They then took their Bill back and altered it, putting it more under the power of Parliament. In New South Wales they also had commissioners. He thought he was right in saying that every colony at one time took commissioners. He thought they had one commissioner and two colleagues, and that commissioner had resisted the demands of a democratic House of Parliament to remove him. He was a non-political man, and though efforts had been made by politicians to get the power into their own hands, the good sense of the public in New South Wales had kept the commissioner in his position.

The New Zealand railways were managed by the Parliament. They must settle what they meant by on Australian lines, because those lines were very varied. He was distinctly of opinion that this matter should be lifted as far as possible out of the political world—(hear, hear)—the principal reason being that continuity of policy was wanted. Although he hoped this Ministry would be eternal—(laughter)—he did not think it would be. The Ministry was only in bud, and when it flowered the usual thing would happen. (Laughter.) They must try and evolve a scheme out of the skeleton given them by the Act of Union. Both sides of the House must combine to lift the matter out of what was called the “arena of party politics.” He did not know what that was just now when he found the Opposition sitting with its arms around the neck of the Government. (Laughter.) They were such a happy tea party there, that they did not seem to have anything of that sort. The Minister of Railways agreed upon the necessity of an Act of Parliament. It would be impossible to carry a Bill like that through this session, which was too far advanced, and the Bill would take up the whole time of a session to argue it. Therefore, he would move, as an amendment, that the words “without delay” be omitted, and that would simply affirm the sense of the whole House that a Bill should be introduced.

The Minister gave no assurance at all.

Oh, yes, he did ; but he said it was too late. He must do it.

He did not say next session.

Whether he thinks it necessary next session or not, I do. In conclusion, Mr. Merriman said he would be sorry to see the House divide on a motion like the one now before it.

seconded the amendment.

said that wherever the Industries Commission went they met commercial people who said that they desired a change in the present state of railway affairs. He referred them to page 13 of the Commerce and Industries Commission report, and the remedy suggested therein was that the present Railway Board should sit as an open court on all matters affecting railway rates, and that this may be extended to other matters affecting railways. The public should be able to go and put their complaints before the Railway Board in open court. He was in favour of a great deal that had been said by the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips), who had put the case for the interior pretty fairly. This question was considered before Union, and they were pledged up to the hilt to carry out the policy they advocated there. They would never have had Union had they not had that clause in the South Africa Act. (Hear, hear.) That meant that they had to have a reduction of railway rates, and that reduction had to come pretty quickly. Government had to take notice and try to do what it could to relieve the present position. The railway was cutting its own throat by these high rates, which particularly affected the poor gold mines, for they required ten times the amount of labour, coal, and machinery that the rich gold mines did. He said that it was an absolutely wrong policy to devote part of the surplus to new railways. The hon. member had made another point where he said that the Government had not given them everything they wanted in regard to the Geduld line. That brought him back to old times in the Transvaal, where the hon. member’s party was in power. The hon. member went on to speak of the construction of the line to the Premier Mine, when they were told that they should build the line out of their own money, that the Government should run it, and charge them. The conditions were that three per cent. should be allowed on the capital invested by the company should any profits be made, and that the Government would take any surplus profit over and above this percentage. Should there be any loss, however, the company had to make it up. He did not bring that forward as a justification for a present Government to deal with them in the wrong way, but merely to show what happened, and how people were treated who wanted facilities through the railways when they were in power. He would like the Minister to say what the policy of the Government was, and whether they were going to get something in the near future, or not. (Hear, hear.)

said that he hoped that that motion would not be accepted. The capital of the railways was a very large amount indeed, and two-thirds of the country’s revenue was too large to be entrusted in the hands of a Board not responsible to Parliament, like the Minister was. It was too dangerous. He was one of those who was not quite satisfied with the present state of affaire, and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country with some of the railway tariffs. If everything were left in the hands of the Board, there would be small hope of having grievances remedied.

said that his hon. friend the member for Yeoville, in introducing the motion, had imported two matters into the discussion which he thought would have been better left entirely alone, but because he had done so, and introduced that extraneous matter, he (Mr. Hull) felt it his duty, as a member of the late Transvaal Government and chairman of the Railway Committee which had been in charge of the railways which belonged to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, to say a few words on that motion. These two matters were, firstly, the alleged deviation of a certain line of railway in the Western Transvaal, and the other one was the authority which had been given by the Transvaal Parliament to build another line close to Geduld. He took it that the hon. member’s intention and object in introducing those two matters to the attention of the House, were to support the argument which he had placed before the House that it was necessary to have a strong Railway Board, and that if there had been a strong Board in the Transvaal these two matters would not have happened. “Now, let me,” added Mr. Hull, “in justice to myself and the hon. gentlemen in this House who were my colleagues in the Transvaal Government, explain to the House what the true facts of these matters are. As to the Lichtenburg line in the Western Transvaal, it was stated by a newspaper published in the Transvaal that a certain route sanctioned by the Transvaal Parliament had been deviated in the interests of certain persons—in the interests of persons who had farms in that part of the country ; and, of course, if that statement be correct, such a deviation is a disgraceful thing, arid is worse than a political job—it is a corrupt job. The hon. gentleman, when introducing this motion, must have had that newspaper article before him, and must have believed the statements in it, or disbelieved them. He must have believed them, because if he did not, he would not have referred to this matter in the House. If he believed them, he used them perfectly rightly to support his case that it was necessary to have a strong Railway Board to prevent a scandal of this kind occurring again.

Not a scandal.

said that he thought that every hon. member who had heard the hon. member for Yeoville must have drawn the inference that it was a scandal. At any rate, it was an alleged irregularity. The Geduld question was an equally grave charge, because it was alleged that certain companies in which he (the hon. member) was interested were asked to make a contribution, while he (Mr. Hull) had not exacted a similar contribution from another company—the Albu group—because they were their political supporters and were interested in that part of the line. That was what the hon. member had said. What were the facts in connection with that so-called deviation? He thought that the Transvaal Parliament had been asked by the Government of the Transvaal in 1909 to sanction the construction of a new line of railway, and he, as Minister of the Transvaal Government and Chairman of the Railway Committee, had introduced a Bill asking for the construction of that line. He might say that the object of that construction was twofold. In the first place, it was common cause that a town like Lichtenburg, which was supposed to be the oldest town in the Western Transvaal, should be supplied with railway communication, and he thought that both sides had agreed that it was necessary to build a line to serve Lichtenburg, and was essential in the interests of the Western Transvaal, that it should also be served with a railway line. The great bone of contention had been where this line should be started from. As hon. members knew, there was a line which ran from Johannesburg, via Potchefstroom and Klerksdorp, to Kimberley—the main line—and the point was from which point of the trunk line that branch should start. Opinion was very strongly divided upon it in the Transvaal. When the Bill was before Parliament the whole fight raged round the one point as to where the line should start from—Klerksdorp or Welverdiend. The question was fully debated before the Transvaal Parliament. He made it perfectly clear in his statement to the House that no survey had been made of the line.

Once the point as to where the line should start from had been settled, it was left to the officers of the Railway to determine for themselves, without any interference on the part of the Government, what direction the line should take, provided always that it achieved two things—it helped the town of Lichtenburg and developed the Western Transvaal. After quoting from a speech he made in the Transvaal House of Assembly on the Bill Mr. Hull went on to say that Parliament sanctioned the line from Welverdiend, and instructions were given to the General Manager and the railway engineers to select the best route. He wanted to say at once that no instructions were given by him as chairman of the Railway Board or by the Railway Committee to the General Manager or the engineers to make any deviation at all. The whole thing was left to their discretion to survey the line which would best serve the interests of the Western Transvaal. It was suggested—and this was where he blamed the hon. member for Yeoville—in the newspaper in question —that the deviation was made and the line was constructed over a farm which belonged to him, and over farms which belonged to his hon. friend, and also, he believed, over a farm belonging to General De la Rey. After the statement was made, his attention was called to it, and he made inquiries from the railway authorities as to when the survey took place, and the information they gave him was to the effect that they employed a surveyor on July 12, 1909, to make a survey, and the survey had been completed by January, 1910. Of course, it might still be said that he had the farm. Unfortunately for the hon. member and the newspaper he quoted, the farm through which the railway line ran, and in respect of which he was charged with having caused a deviation to be made, was purchased by him fourteen or fifteen months after the survey had been made, after the line had been staked, and after the deviation had been made. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member (Sir Lionel Phillips) said that if there had been a strong Railway Board things of this kind could not possibly take place.

I did not say anything of the kind.

Then why did the hon. member introduce it?

I will explain.

The alternative is that he introduced it here as an opportunity of having a blind shot at the Government. I believe that was really the reason why the hon. member introduced it at all. The hon. member cannot say that he had no means of ascertaining the facts, because if he had taken the slightest trouble he could have ascertained the facts. No instructions were given by the Railway Board or by any members of the Government with regard to the line.

Proceeding, Mr. Hull said he now came to the other line, viz., the Geduld line, in regard to which the charge was much more specific. The hon. member did not wait first of all for a newspaper to make certain gross insinuations. The case was this, that during the same session of Parliament, he (Mr. Hull) as Chairman of the Railway Board, asked Parliament to sanction the building of a short line of railway, nine miles—

Thirteen.

Some 13 miles, the hon. member says, from Geduld to a place called Welverdacht. The Object of that line was to serve some five or six mines along the proposed route. Continuing, Mr. Hull said the hon. member had done him the honour to quote from a speech that he made in the Transvaal Inter-Colonial Council in 1904. He was exceedingly glad that he did so, be cause all the principles for which he then contended in that speech he still adhered to to-day, and he applied those principles in the line which he asked Parliament to build from Geduld. He then said that they must not build lines for the benefit of individuals, unless those lines were contributed to by those individuals. It was a great pity that the hon. gentleman, who was one of the gentlemen who had great authority in the Transvaal in those days, did not at that time deem fit to support him. They had plenty of power. He was only one little voice crying in the wilderness. The hon. member had quoted from one of his 1904 speeches with approval. He wondered if he would quote from other speeches which he made on the Chinese question with equal approval. (Hear, hear.) If these gentlemen had listened to his speeches in regard to the water schemes, Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand would not to-day be saddled with such a heavy debt. He found no support in the principle he then laid down. When he got into power and had office he applied it in the case of the Geduld line.

What did he do. This line was to serve the interests of five or six companies, and he instructed the general manager to approach these companies and ascertain what contributions could be exacted.

After Parliament passed the money.

Before Parliament passed the money. Continuing, he said he discovered that, unfortunately, some of the promisee that were made could not be depended upon. Unfortunately these things were not always put into writing. The reason why he refused to complete the line was because one of the companies—the one which his hon. friend had said was a friend of the Government—had refused to pay a contribution.

Did they promise?

said that now his hon. friend came forward and made the gross charge that for political reasons this company was not asked to make a contribution.

I did not say anything of the kind.

What was your object then in saying that this company was a friend of the Government? What was your object in saying that only some of the companies were made to pay? I think it unfortunate that the hon. member should have referred to this matter. Continuing, he said he thought his hon. friend would see that he was giving the true version of the affair to the House. It seemed that when hon. members on the other side failed to carry their motions of censure they commenced to make charges of corruption against the Government. Probably it was the atmosphere in which they lived that made them prone to make these charges. (Ministerial cheers.) At any rate, he could say that there was not one word of truth in the suggestions connected with the cases which had been referred to by his hon. friend. Nothing was done of which any honourable man need feel ashamed. Now, he would say a word with regard to the motion.

Hear, hear.

My hon. friend says “Hear, hear.” Surely he does not object to my defending myself against these charges? (Ministerial cheers.) I would expect him to do the same if he were in my position, and such charges were brought against him. (Ministerial cheers.) Continuing, the speaker said that he must say that he was disappointed with the debate. He would say that running the railways on business lines was merely an experiment, and he must say that he was most anxious to see that experiment given a fair trial. He was bound to say that the high hopes which he entertained in the Convention regarding this proposal had not borne much fruit, though he was still very hopeful. He was not like his hon. friend the member for Pretoria East, who got excited because the clause had not borne good fruit immediately. He was disappointed with things so far, because he and his friends from the North drafted that clause in the Convention, and it was known that unless that clause was inserted and so prevent the railways being run as taxing machines they from the North could not go into Union.

But he was still hopeful, and what he said was “Wait and see.” He did not want to anticipate his hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours in regard to his budget, but he would say that when his hon. friend brought forth that budget hon. members on both sides of the House would have evidence that it was the intention of the Minister to carry into effect the provisions of clause 127. He would not say that the clause would be completely carried out, because they could not do everything the Act contemplated at once. For that reason four years were allowed. So soon as he (the speaker) gave the Minister the assurance that he would not draw upon him to meet deficits then the matter would be fully settled. The point was that speakers on the other side had not indicated what powers should be possessed by the Board.

What did the Convention say?

That the Government shall be responsible for the railway policy. Continuing, he said that that was why these words, “Subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council” were inserted in clause 127. If his hon. friend did something of which the House did not approve then it was for Parliament to call him to account. There was not the slightest intention that he should be allowed to shelter himself behind the Board. If any mistake was made by the Board he and the members of the Government at present in power were responsible to the House for that policy.

I have said that dozens of times.

I know you have said it. Continuing, he said that other members contended that the Board should be responsible to the House. That would lead to an impossible state of affairs, and from that point of view the discussion had not been helpful. Was the Board to be made an absolutely independent body, responsible to Parliament alone? If so, it would not be a non-political body, because Parliament would bring pressure to bear upon it. Well, he held the view that Government should be responsible to Parliament for its railway policy, and he thought it would be wrong to leave, either the country or the House, under the impression that the Government should legislate on the lines of making the Railway Board an independent body. He thought that few members of the House could have studied the regulations which were laid on the table of the House last year. Transvaal members would find them very familiar, for they were modelled—in some cases, taken word for word—on the regulations which were in force in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Germiston had said that he had always urged an independent Board in the Transvaal. Well, that hon. gentleman must have forgotten what took place in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal they had had a Railway Committee, which was omnipotent, and the charge made against the Transvaal Government was that the committee was not responsible to anybody.

There were members of the Government on it.

Not all members of the Government ; both from the From State and the Transvaal. Now we are told that we must have a Board that will be supreme.

A non-political body.

How are you going to have a non-political body? You can’t have it. Continuing, he said he thought the regulations were originally framed by Lord Milner, and they remained in force until self-government was established. When the Railway Committee was established, the regulations were continued. He thought that if hon. members studied the regulations, they would find the solution of the question in the regulations. He would ask the House to leave matters as they stood at present. He felt certain they need only give this a trial, and the result would be satisfactory to hon. members on the other side of the House. (Ministerial cheers.)

said his hon. friend the Minister of Finance had devoted a considerable portion of the time of the House and a considerable amount of wrath to repudiate statements which his hon. friend the member forYeoville (Sir Lionel Phillips) denied he made. His hon. friend was becoming extremely thin-skinned. What his hon. friend conveyed to the House was that, had this Railway Board been appointed, as was the intention of the Convention, there would have been no suspicions, regarding this or any other line, that the original surveys and intentions had been departed from. But would the right Hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) now be sufficiently satisfied with his amendment, after hearing the speech of the Minister of Finance, who now said that the duties and powers of the Board could be defined by regulations, and it would not be necessary to pass an Act. The Minister of Railways practically assured the House that he would introduce legislation at some future time, whereas he now gathered from the Minister of Finance that he and his colleagues from the Transvaal were not sufficiently strong to have their way and that it was in the hands of the Minister of Railways and Harbours ; but even if they were strong enough he would still be prepared to have the definitions laid down by regulations. His hon. friend the member for Victoria West was always referring to the support the Opposition gave to the Government. Mr. Merriman did support them and voted for them for certain reasons which he had not yet explained to the House. He had criticised the Government as strongly as anything that had ever been hurled from this side of the House ; but he always voted with the Government. The Minister of Finance gave them a very amusing picture. His speech, he thought, would form an excellent subject for a cartoon! the Minister of Finance as a milkmaid milking the Minister of Railways and Harbours as a milch cow with an iron tail and instead of milk gold flowing into the pail. (Laughter.) But what that had to do with the rights and wrongs of the Government not laying down the duties and powers of the Railway Board he could not understand. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Yeoville gave them clearly the intentions of the Convention as embodied in the Act of Union. As the Minister said, there was a considerable difference of opinion in regard to the proposals for the establishment of a Railway Board. As he said, the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger) and himself (Sir Thos.) disagreed with the attitude adopted by the Transvaal delegates. They held that the members of Parliament were the representatives of the shareholders, who were the general taxpayers. The compromise they arrived at was really a Board much on the lines adopted by the hon. member for Victoria West and the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours when they sat with him in 1907 on a Commission for the purpose of defining some system to bring the railways of the Cape Colony as far as possible out of party politics, and they laid down a system which he tried to have legislative enactment for, whereby the Board should have certain defined powers even though it was only an advisory board. He had that report of the Commission there, and it was subscribed to by the hon. member for Victoria West with a postscript, but the postcript did not agree with the main principles. It was laid down that legislation should be introduced establishing a railway advisory board with certain powers, among which was that the Minister should consult the board as to the general management of railways, the fixing of rates and fares for all classes of traffic, estimates and bills providing for funds for railway purposes to an extent not exceeding £500,000, all contracts and tenders; any change in the organisation of the department, or any change involving the abolition or creation of officers with salaries of over £400 per annum, measures of retrenchment, and so on. Then it laid down a very important point which was agreed to by the present Minister of Railways and Harbours, that, although this was only an advisory board, in any case where the Minister departed from their policy he was to make a report in writing, giving his reasons for so doing and lay it before Parliament. That was embodied in the Bill which came before Parliament, and when it was embodied he found that his two strongest critics were the hon. member for Victoria West and the Minister for Railways and Harbours. Then the right hon. member for Victoria West said they must trust the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours and not press that legislation should be introduced quickly. His right hon. friend was in the House last session when the hon. member for Cape Town Central put the following question to the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the purpose of defining: (1) The duties and powers of the Railway Board; (2) the duties and disabilities of the members of the Board, and fixing their salaries ; and (3) regulating generally all matters connected with the control and management of the railways by the said Board. To that the Minister replied: “No, Mr. Speaker; certainly not.” That was the reason of the motion by the hon. member for Yeoville: that they had an unqualified statement by the Minister that it was not his intention to introduce legislation into that House defining by statute the powers and duties of the Board, which it was the intention of the Convention to have done. Now, the Minister of Finance had made a great point of that House giving up its authority. Nobody held stronger views than he (the speaker) that Parliament should not give up its authority, and that was taken up by the Commission in 1907, and was the basis of the Bill introduced into the Cape House. They said that Parliament should lay down the policy of the railways which was the property of the taxpayers of the country, and, having laid down that, it should be administered by a non-party Board, and should the Minister for the time being desire to depart from that policy, he would have to place in Writing before the Board his reasons for departing from the opinion of the Board, and that report should be laid upon the table in Parliament. That, he thought, was entirely the view taken up by the National Convention when they drew up the clause which was now embodied in the Act of Union, and which was so admirably explained by the hon. member for Germiston. But that was entirely different from the attitude adopted by the Minister. They discussed that matter very fully last year when dealing with the Estimates, and what he (Sir Thomas) said was that the House wanted, in all circumstances, to be placed in possession of the views of the Railway Board, and to know whether the policy adopted by the Minister was a reasonable policy and the opinions of the Board, or the majority of the Board, and whether the Minister, acting in his arbitrary manner, had gone behind the decisions of the Board and carried on the affairs of the country as though that particular clause had never been inserted. The Minister of Finance raised a paper containing a large amount of railway regulations, but who introduced those regulations? The Minister who had the authority to alter them to-morrow. That was the position as it was understood in the House and in the country, and it was with the view of assisting his hon. friend and the members of the Government from the Transvaal, who were not strong enough to deal with the matter themselves, that they proposed, in the most friendly manner, to compel the hon. Minister for Railways and Harbours to bring in a Bill defining what were the statutory duties and powers of the Board, and having defined them, to compel the hon. Minister, when he had departed from those powers, to be responsible to the House for doing so. It was under those circumstances that he hoped the hon. member for Victoria West would not press his amendment, and having the assurance of the Minister of Finance that he did not think it necessary that a Bill should be introduced that the hon. member would withdraw his amendment. Surely, after they had waited two years, it was the duty of the House, irrespective of party considerations, to demand that the Act of Union, whether a Minister liked it or not, should be carried out in its entirety. (Cheers.)

said he was disappointed in the debate, in so far as it had failed to contribute any enlightenment on the subject. There was a great difference of opinion as to what the powers of the Board should be. There were hon. gentlemen opposite who contended that the Board should have larger powers than it had at present, and larger powers than the South Africa Act gave. Another section of the House thought the Board’s powers should be limited. There was another large section which held the opinion that the Board’s powers should be of an advisory character. But the debate had not clearly indicated the views of the House as to what the Board’s powers should be. That was the crux of the question. He believed the Board exercised all the powers given it under the Act of Union. The Board’s powers and duties were prescribed in the regulations laid on the table last year. Although he was of opinion that it would be a good thing to define the powers, in a Bill he introduced it would not give powers larger than was contemplated in the South Africa Act. (Hear, hear.) In defining the powers of the Board, he would confine himself simply to what the South Africa Act prescribed, and no more. To that extent there may be some advantage in having legislation. The final power in the management of the railways and the policy to be carried out by the Act of Union rested with the Government for the time being. The Act said that the Board should, subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council, control the railways. When that Act was passed, he understood that finally the responsibility rested with the Government for the time being, and whatever hon. gentlemen might say, that was the principle that was being pursued. If anything went wrong on the railways, the complaints fell on the Minister, so that the House itself had recognised that finally the responsibility rested with the Government for the time being. That was a very important principle, which he did not think they should depart from, and if they attempted by legislation to depart from it they would fail, because the people of the country would not consent to hand over the railways to a body which would be outside the influence of Parliament. The question of defining the powers of the Board had no connection with the question of reducing the rates to the North. (Hear, hear.) Under the Act of Union, the Government could for four years help itself to any railway surpluses there might be, after provision has been made for certain services.

They now came to the important question, namely, that of reducing the cost of living in the North. He had never been adverse to that principle—on the contrary, he had been an advocate of that in the Convention. He in no way expressed any opposition to that as a matter of principle, and the only reason it had not been given effect to was simply because up to the present Treasury wants had to be met; that was the only reason it had not been done. Last session the Treasurer said that he would take less and less of the railway surpluses, until they came to the end of the period fixed under the Act of Union. Not only would that policy be carried out, but it would be somewhat hastened, and immediately, or almost immediately, as soon as the necessary arrangements could be made, and Budgets had been delivered, an announcement would be made that the policy of that section of the Act of Union—which said that the cost of living in the North should be lessened by a reduction of railway rates—would be given effect to. (Hear, hear.) Very soon he hoped to be able to explain more in detail the extent to which it would be done. A very substantial step in that direction would, however, be made. With regard to the motion itself, he had already said that he had no objection to a definition of the powers of the Railway Board, but when that question came before the House, it would give rise to a very long and, perhaps, contentious discussion. In saying that he would introduce a Bill, he did not mean to depart from the South Africa Act, and practically that already had been defined in the regulations laid before the House. He did not propose to alter the Constitution, but to put in a statutory form the powers he thought were intended to be given by the South Africa Act. But he could not undertake to do it immediately, and if the motion were passed as amended, that would expressly say what he meant. He wished once more to say that with regard to the policy laid down in the South Africa Act—the charter of the Northern Provinces—there was no over-riding by anybody, and no attempts to fail to carry out that policy, and the only reason it was delayed was because of the right under the South Africa Act for Government to take the railway surpluses. They felt that the time had now come to take a long step immediately to give effect to that provision in the Act of Union, by materially and substantially reducing the railway rates to the inland Provinces and for long-distance traffic. (Cheers.)

said he wished to represent the views of the country generally in regard to this matter. He was perfectly convinced that the Minister’s hands were clean in regard to all railway transactions. But speaking as one of the general public in South Africa and representing an up-country constituency, where they had no Parliamentary history to go on, he did say that after such instances as they were now getting, they ought to see whether it was not possible to put these railway matters outside political influence, where no question could arise about jobbery or corruption either inside the House or anywhere else. He was not lawyer enough to take the South Africa Act and tell what powers were described there, but what he wanted to say was that throughout South Africa there was a general impression that the object of the Convention was to take the railways out of the sphere of political influence and put them in the hands of a Railway Board. This impression was deepened by the fact that the Act provided that the members of the Railway Board could only be dismissed by Act of Parliament and not by a Minister. The general feeling was that deputations would interview the Railway Board and would state their cases, which the Board would consider and then submit their report. They found nothing of that.

The Act does not allow it.

I daresay it doesn’t ; as I said, I am no lawyer ; but that was the general feeling. Continuing, the hon. member said they had such questions before the House as using one class of labour instead of another, because it was more economical. Surely that was a matter for the Railway Board to decide. He was simply instancing a few things that the ordinary man in the street thought ought to come before the Railway Board. Seeing the uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the South Africa Act, he had grave doubts whether the Convention represented the wisdom of the country. All he wanted to convey was that the man in the street felt that the railways of the country should be run on business lines.

said he would first of all allude to what he would call the trivialities of the debate, chiefly those that he had heard that afternoon. He was sorry that the Minister of Finance was not in his place, because he was going to deal with those charges that had been made against himself. Personally he was not conscious that he had said anything in the course of his speech which would offend the susceptibilities of the most sensitive person at all. He had never seen the article in question, nor had he anything to do with the newspaper referred to by the Minister. He had heard something about a changed line in the Transvaal, and that after certain surveys it was found necessary to deviate that line. He had not gone into this question, but he had said that if at any time a line happened to go out of the direct line and it passed over property of important persons connected with the Government or Parliament, unless they had a Railway Board to decide the whole question, they would have these charges raised. The Minister of Finance must have used these words for the purpose of making use of an offensive innuendo towards him (Sir L. Phillips). He would not descend to that level. He would refer first of all to what was said about the Benoni line. Well, he never had made any charge of political corruption about this line; what he did say was that a certain line had been sanctioned by Parliament, and a gap was not completed because a certain group controlling a property over which the line was to pass refused to contribute. Some members of the Government were so particularly sensitive that it suggested the idea that they were living in glass houses. There was one French saying which he thought they might take to heart, and that was “Qui s’excuse s’accuse.” If the hon. gentleman had anything to say against him, let him say straightforwardly out what he meant, and he would be happy to meet him here or anywhere. The hon. gentleman charged them with not making their meaning clear. Of course it was not for the Opposition to frame an Act. They could hardly expect that the Government would accept an Act that they might frame. The Hon. the Minister of Railways was taking to himself powers that were not in the Act. He had usurped powers which the South Africa Act had never given him. It had never given him a casting vote. It would be much better never to have a Railway Board if they were not to consider the building of new lines and railway rates. He had no intention in the motion that had been brought forward that day to take away the powers of Parliament. What he did say was that they should have a Railway Board charged with important matters concerning new lines and railway rates, and upon their report Parliament would act. He also believed that any difference of opinion between the Board and the Government should be published.

It was a perfect farce to-day, and the Railway Board, as it was constituted at present, was a plaything of the Minister, and the sooner it was done away with the better, if it was like that. He did not for a moment suggest that the Railway Board was not composed of perfectly competent people. He believed it was. He believed it had men who had rendered the country the greatest possible services, but under the conditions as they were at present it was simply thwarted and crippled ; and, therefore, it was surprising to him that the Minister had not accepted the motion he had brought forward. When he saw the proposed legislation of the Government, he saw that there were a great many Bills which had been brought forward which might have been left out of the list, in favour of such an important matter as that, for here they had one of the things which affected the vital interests of the whole of South Africa, and it was not considered worthy of being placed on the legislative programme of the Government in that, the second session. He was surprised that the Minister had taken up the attitude in regard to that which he had. He was so strongly convinced that the motion he had brought forward was for the welfare of South Africa and that it would have the approval of the people of South Africa generally, that he thought that if the members of the House could vote on it as they felt in their hearts it would be carried—but they knew what party discipline was, and they would find, when it came to the vote, that those who had expressed principles like the right hon. member for Victoria West, and who had spoken very strongly in favour of the principles underlying the motion, would be found to vote against it. In order to prejudice the matter, the right hon. member and a member of the Ministry had described it as a vote of censure. He thought that it would be twisting the phraseotlogy very much before they could read into it anything of the kind. He had introduced it for the advantage of the country; and they were sowing the seed to-day of which they would reap the unpleasant harvest in future. The Government had taken the railway system into the political arena, and it was contrary to human nature to suppose that during their tenure of office the Government would not favour their own friends and partisans. They would leave a legacy which their successors would not find it easy to alter. If the Government had been honest in their wish to keep the railways of the country out of the political arena and party politics, they would have introduced a Bill to deal with the matter, and it would have been carried without any serious opposition on that side of the House. They were not asking for any excessive power, but that a system should be inaugurated by which the railway system would be protected as much as possible from party influences. He would not, at that late stage of the debate, follow his hon. friend on the question of railway rates, because, as he had said in his opening speech, it was a question which would take considerable time. The North was being absolutely strangled by the railway rates; and he proposed to deal with that when they came to the railway budget. Having quoted from what Mr. Andrew Johnston had said about having much to learn from countries like the United States of America and Germany, where rate-making was a fine art, and that it rested on sound fundamental lines; to make the country develop, building up a vigorous and prosperous community, Sir Lionel said that was what they must do in this country. The Board ought to take the responsibility, instead of which the Minister shielded himself behind the Board when it suited him.

I don’t shield myself behind anybody. (Laughter.)

said that the Minister always reminded him of bursting with a desire to give all information, and thirsting to give the Railway Board all power ; but the real point was that he did not do it—(laughter)—and what they had hoped for, and still hoped for, was that the Railway Board should be a real, live body, instead of being a sort of automaton, the strings of which were pulled by the Minister of Railways when it suited him and for his own purposes. He (the hon. member) had never suggested that the railways should be handed over to an irresponsible body, and he hoped he had made it clear to the House what the duties and powers of the Railway Board should be, upon general lines; and upon those general lines the Government had refused to meet them, and he was sorry that the Minister had not introduced a Bill to deal with it. The responsibility for not doing so would rest with the Minister. It did not seem to be coming into being that session, and he doubted whether it would be done next session—the biggest thing in South Africa, which involved eighty millions of money.

put the question that the words “without delay,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion; and declared the “Noes” had it.

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

said he hoped that the Minister of the Interior would reconsider his decision and that he would not abolish this Board in Natal, but would keep it even if only as an Advisory Board. He moved that the clause be expunged.

said he could not think that any useful object would be achieved by keeping this Advisory Board in Natal. It seemed to him a wrong step to keep this Board alive in one part of the Union. Another objection was that this Board sat in Pietermaritzburg and the Minister presumably was at Pretoria. How was he going to be advised by this Advisory Board?

said that no doubt the Board was of use when the Natal Government was in existence. Did he understand the Minister that he was going to appoint a Board in Pretoria to advise him?

No.

He will do away with Boards entirely?

Yes.

said he could see that it would be awkward to have four Boards sitting in the different Provinces, but if the Minister would admit the principle that a Board should advise him in all these matters he would be perfectly satisfied.

said he regretted that the Minister had refused to strike out this clause. He urged the necessity of having a Board between the local authorities and the Government. In Natal they had an Advisory Board of ten members, which was a safeguard against any autocratic decisions given by the Government. Their experience in the Cape Colony was exactly similar. The hon. member sketched the circumstances which led to the constitution of the Medical Council as an Advisory Board to the Minister and the introduction into the Act of a clause to safeguard local authorities, so that any local authority should not be compelled to do certain things without reference to the Advisory Medical Board, if they desired such reference. This system, he claimed, had worked well as a safeguard between the Minister and the public. He hoped the Minister would not press the point, because he wanted to safeguard local authorities and individuals. These Boards constituted Courts of Appeal.

said he thought the Minister was removing a body that would be of immense assistance to him in the future, and would remove any chance of friction. It was most necessary in the direction of public health, and he hoped that the Minister would concede the point.

said that if the Minister under the old system found these Boards to be an advantage when they were near the Boards, how much more necessary would they be when the future Minister of Public Health would be spending more of his time in Pretoria? How could the Minister at Pretoria keep his finger on local conditions of public health? He thought it would be a tremendous safeguard to the Minister himself, as well as the public, to keep those Boards in the Cape.

said it was absolutely necessary to have a Board at work on the spot in case of an outbreak of disease. It would save a great deal of time. The Minister should have a Board in each Province which would always be there and would possess local knowledge.

said that the hon. member was under a misapprehension. The Board which was appointed at Durban was a Board of the character provided for by the Bill. These Boards were appointed in the case of an outbreak of disease. Later provision provided for the appointment of these Boards. He went on to say that, it had been found that the old system did not always work. There was very little restraint on the Medical Officer in Natal, but it was necessary to have some. But this Bill, in clause 44, swept away that autocratic officer. He quite understood in relation to local authorities it might be necessary to have some check on the central authorities; but all routine matters would not be dealt with by the Union Government at all. The Bill meant that the Union Government would watch largely the public health, and step in in case of epidemic ; but all routine matters would be dealt with by the local authorities. Hon. members would see that the difficulty in Natal had been met by the provision of provincial administration. In the case of an epidemic, the Union Government took control, and a committee would be appointed, as in the case of Durban. He did not think any hardship would arise in the case of local authorities.

said he had to thank the Minister for having proved his case. It would be better to have local Boards to advise the Minister.

said that section 5 of the Cape Act of 1897 said that the Colonial Medical Council should be an Advisory Board of Health. In the schedule that section was to be repealed.

pointed out that the section of the Bill now under discussion dealt with the Natal Board of Health.

said the Minister had previously stated that he did not intend to do away with the Cape Medical Council.

said this question had a very material bearing on the section under discussion.

moved that the clause stand over.

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

said that he would propose a new clause, the substance of which was to be found in the Immigration and Irrigation Bills. Clause 3 of the Immigration Bill said: “The Governor-General may establish, and, out of the money voted by Parliament for the purpose maintain a department to be known as the Immigration Department.” Clause 3 of the Irrigation Bill said: “There shall be for the Union a department, to be known as the Irrigation Department, which shall be under the control of the Minister.” He moved that the following be a new clause, to follow clause 5, viz.: 6 (1) The Governor-General may establish, and, out of moneys to be voted by Parliament for the purpose, maintain a department to be known as the Public Health Department, which shall be under the control of the Minister, and shall appoint an officer to be designated the Medical Officer of Health for the Union, who, subject to such control, shall administer the said department. (2) The functions of the Department shall, subject to such instructions as the Medical Officer of Health may from time to time receive from the Minister, to the exercise of all powers and the general supervision of all matters assigned to the Minister by this Act, or by any regulations made thereunder. The hon. member added that if the Minister of the Interior accepted the amendment, he was quite sure that he would not only improve the Bill, but would satisfy the country. According as the Bill stood now, it confers very small powers upon the Minister. He did not think that a very satisfactory state of things.

said the hon. member (Dr. Macaulay) had instanced the Immigration Department, but that was a very small department indeed, whereas the Health Department constituted the major portion of the work of the Department of the Interior. He had already explained that the Administrative Department of Public Health was in the Department of the Interior, and what was only required was the necessary expert advice. They did not want to create additional departments nor additional expense. If he (the Minister) thought that any good purpose could be served by creating this department, he would do so, but even hon. gentlemen opposite would not agree to this. Why should they saddle the country with this additional expense, when the work could be done efficiently by the Department of the Interior? The largest portion of the work of that department was public health matters. Therefore, he could not accept the amendment.

Progress was thereupon reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.