from the Randjeslaagte Syndicate, praying the House to inquire into their claim against the Government for a moiety of the proceeds of sale of Von Brandis-square, Johannesburg.

from inhabitants of Witzieshoek, Harrismith, O.F.S., praying for telegraphic or telephonic communication.

from holders of quitrent farms Cathcart, Queenstown, Stutterheim and Komgha, praying for reduction (two petitions).

from Jacob Levitsch, Johannesburg, who suffered loss of £1,800 during the late war.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the petition from J. A. Bester, of Kroonstad, who received certain wounds during the late war, and was granted a pension of £18 per annum, praying the House to consider the circumstances of his case, and to grant him relief, presented to the House yesterday, be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

seconded.

Agreed to.

as chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Natal Bank (Limited) Laws 1888 to 1912 Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

moved, that the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Agreement with Mr. Henry Horace Wright for the purchase of Government scrap metal and certain preferential rates on the railway.

That the House do now resolve itself into committee, that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

said that before the Speaker put the motion, he would like to bring up a matter of some urgency. He referred to the state of the employees in the Post Office in the Orange Free State. He would like the Government to realise the importance of the Civil Service Bill. The post office officials in the Free State felt very keenly the injustice of their treatment as compared with that of other officials. As the Government reorganised the department without reference to Parliament, they must bear the burden of the discontent that had been caused. He would cite one or two examples of harsh treatment Before Union, a Commission was appointed in the Free State, and it made certain recommendations in regard to post office officials. They recommended the reduction of the staff and payment for overtime. The latter recommendation was not acted upon. The Union Government, when they came into power accepted that position, and consequently Free State post office servants had frequently to work overtime without receiving overtime pay.

I would ask the hon. member to what vote is he alluding. There is a motion down for to-morrow for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

There is an item here in reference to the post office.

The debate is not relevant at this stage. The hon. member will have every, opportunity to morrow to raise the point, on the motion go into Committee of Supply.

I am not dealing with the pay of officials, but with the differential treatment in regard to these officials, and those from other Colonies.

This point does not arise.

May I not refer to the point I wish to make? It is a question; of grading.

That will come under the motion to-morrow. It is not in order now.

I always understood that this could be done. (Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

said that he understood that the motion was that the House go into committee for the purpose of voting the sum of money mentioned. When the Government asked the House for money, was an hon. member not within his rights in bringing up any grievance before the House voted the money?

An hon. member is at liberty to discuss only such subjects as are covered by the Estimates of Expenditure now before the House.

The motion was agreed to.

said that this additional amount was required to meet the deficit on the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms during the first session. He thought that showed bad management. When friends of members visited the place, they should get their refreshments outside. Was it fair competition with the public to lunch visitors at the expense of the country?

was understood to say that the hon. member was not without blame in this matter.

I go outside.

said that though the hon. member brought visitors along himself he now complained in the House that they charged too little. Proceeding, he said that they would not see a more beautiful dining-room in any House of Parliament in the world. Then they had the members of the Convention there.

You did not pay for that. You got that for nothing.

said he was at a loss to understand the Minister, because his department was supposed to be run on business principles, and he was suffering no loss. He ran the service and charged the full cost of the service to Parliament. The Minister of Railways suffered no loss, and he thought that the Minister of Finance rather than the Minister of Railways should have replied to the question.

said that he raised the very question last year, and he hoped that it would not be said that he was raising the question now simply for the sake of discussion. He had been a member of the Internal Arrangements Committee, and the views he held then he held now. He said the refreshment room should not be run at a loss, and that this lass should fall on the general taxpayer of the country. That department should not cost any more than the amount, and he thought they should run it on the lines of the refreshment rooms of the House of Commons, where, so the Minister told them, no loss was incurred. He pointed out that the taxpayers of the country were asking questions of their representatives concerning this vote. He pointed out that while running at a loss the refreshment room was in competition with licensed houses and clubs in the city which had to pay licences. These people had to pay a certain amount for licences, and he thought it was unfair to compete with them at a loss. He was expressing a view which he thought was held by many members of that House.

said that before the House passed the vote he would like to ask the Minister how it came about that no meeting of the Internal Arrangements Committee had been called that session. Last year they were told that there was a certain deficiency, but they had received no statement showing how that loss had been incurred. They were told that saving methods would be effected this year, but the committee had had no opportunity of discussing these proposals. They simply had to take the word of the Minister that such a saving would be effected. It was said that the expenses would be cut down, but the matter had not been discussed by the responsible committee.

said that in the old Cape House the refreshment room was run by a joint committee of both Houses; here the Minister seemed to be the manager of the refreshment room. Why should not the Internal Arrangements Committee have a say and submit recommendations to the House on the subject?

pointed out that he was not a member of the Internal Arrangements Committee. The Railway Department were quite willing to withdraw from the contract. If hon. members had views on the subject why did not they bring them before the responsible committee. He was not a member of that committee.

said he always understood that members paid for refreshments. He did not agree that this money should come out of the packets of the taxpayers.

alluded to the cases of hon. members who spent most of the day on Select Committees, and said there were two sides to every question.

said this was a matter which he had been asked many questions about. He took the same view as other members, that it was not right that the public should bear this loss. If hon. members wished to have their meals in town they could go to clubs or ordinary business institutions. These dining-rooms were one of many things which should be abolished.

said people coming from other parts of the country were not always members of clubs in this town, and for them dining-rooms of this kind were a necessity. He wished to remind the hon. House that the losses were not only caused by the dining-rooms, but also, by the billiard tables, and in any step they took this fact should not be lost sight of.

said he would not like it to go abroad that people got their luncheons and dinners for nothing, that was why he wanted to speak, simply with the object of dispelling that idea.

said there seemed to be some misunderstanding in regard to this matter. This additional amount was required to meet the expense incurred during the first session of Parliament. It would seem that they were responsible for this, but it was nothing of the kind. The joint Parliamentary Committee was appointed last year, and without referring to the Government at all they incurred this expenditure. He had to face the music and foot the bill. What he really wanted to impress upon the House was that he had nothing to do with the matter.

said the Government could not get away from their responsibility. The Government had a majority in the House, and they had a majority on that committee.

said he was a member of the Internal Arrangements Committee, and they had considered the state of the finance of the refreshment department. This department had been established on a too lavish scale, and after consideration they had reduced the staff of waiters and others, as they had far too many. The committee had been responsible for checking the expenditure and reducing the cost of the upkeep of the department.

This is a very fragrant discussion. (Laughter.) The House is never so virtuous as when it is engaged in settling a domestic matter of this sort. At the same time, I don’t know whether to admire the action of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort or of the hon. Treasurer. Really, there is a very simple way of getting over it. Proceeding, he said they should either charge more or cut down expenses. And with regard to this amount of £765. which he thought was the excess of the loss—well, really, they had 160 members in the House. If they sent round the hat, and each put a fiver, they would settle it. They each got £400 a year, and he thought that would settle it. (Laughter and cheers.)

said that if the right hon. member for Victoria West would undertake to collect the amount, it would relieve them greatly. (Laughter.) They did not want to make any attack on the committees or those responsible for the Tunning of the refreshment rooms ; but they would be glad of an assurance that an inquiry would be made and things rectified. His own feeling was that the meal given in the House should be cut down, but if the right hon. gentleman would go round with the hat and get the £5 donations he mentioned, he would, be prepared to let things remain as they were. But, in any case, he did not propose to oppose this; but thought they required some guarantee that the Government or that somebody would go into this, and they would not be charged by the taxpayers with wasting money on their own enjoyment and refreshments.

thought the discussion was an undignified one, and in itself had cost the country nearly £700, the amount which was said to be short. The refreshment rooms were necessary.

said that when they discussed questions like that he, for one, would not keep silent. If the taxpayers had to pay for the convenience of hon. members, he, for one, would raise his voice on behalf of the tax pavers. He asked why they could not follow the example of the old Orange Free State, where the House adjourned for ten minutes at 4 o’clock, so that hon. members could partake of light refreshments, only light refreshments being provided?

thought he could suggest a very simple remedy. He supposed that by the Grace of God, and Mr. Speaker, the Internal Arrangements Committee would be called upon to meet before the end of the session, and he thought they should recommend to deduct £5 from each hon. member’s payment at the end of the session.

said he thought it would be satisfactory if they knew for what reason the Internal Arrangements Committee had not been brought together. With regard to the arrangement suggested by the right hon. member for Victoria West, he thought he knew that there were some members who took more refreshment than others. However, he thought it was a great pity the committee had not been brought together earlier in the session. He would like to ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort if he had considered what the effect of putting the onus on the Government would be. There were too few matters left to the decision of hon. members. The less the onus was put upon the Government in these matters the better it would be for the convenience of hon. members of the House.

deplored the discussion, which would give the public the impression that members’ expenses were paid out of the Exchequer In ibis view the refreshment rooms were necessary and agreeable, especially during weary debates. He declined to contribute £5 towards the payment of the deficit.

said it was impossible to suppose that a Government concern like this would be run by a committee, seeing that it was a going concern before the committee was appointed. Some member on the Government benches must be responsible for the contract.

said that the committee was appointed last session and he was a member of it. They sat down after the appointment to decide what they should have. (Laughter.) They sat down with the menu and tried to adjust things as far as they were able. They started, not knowing what their requirements were. The whole menu was much too expensive and they considerably reduced it. Their main loss was on the dining-room. That had all been cut away.

Who took that away?

It was not taken away by my committee. (A VOICE: “Ah.”) If more members, he added, patronised the dining-room there need be no loss upon it. Let hon. members who spoke so much about their patriotism come and help to make it up. He would suggest to the hon. member for Piquetberg that he should at once withdraw their railway pass. It would be an immense saving to the country and they would all contribute. He (Mr. De Beer) never used the dining-room and he seldom used the billiard-room. The hon. member for Boshof forgot that in the Free State Parliament on tea alone they lost £100 a year. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

said that he was not going to be scared off by what hon. members had said, and he was going to stick to what he had said. If they had refreshment rooms let them pay for the refreshments themselves. Whatever they had, let them pay for it. His constituents had asked him why the taxpayers of the country should have to pay for the refreshments partaken of by hon. members; and he contended that the £750 should be spent to better advantage, because there were many matters which required money to be spent on them. As to the free railway passes, that was quite a, different matter, and they were in the interests of the country. (Laughter.) They enabled hon. members to travel about and get to know the country.

said that there had been no deficit on the Parliamentary refreshment rooms in the Orange Free State Parliament. The £100 voted for tea had not been spent. He contended that when a matter like that came before them every hon. member had a perfect right to have his say, because it had to do with the interests of the taxpayers, and the hon. member for Vrededorp had no right to say that those who disagreed with him were wasting time.

said he would be very sorry to see the Government wrecked over such a small thing as this—(laughter)—and therefore he hoped the vote would be allowed. At the same time he thought the House should not spend the money of the taxpayer in this way. He hoped the House would have a report showing how the dining room was paying this session, for the question was not so much making up the past loss as the continuance of running the dining room at a loss. The suggestion to send the hat round did not seem to have been received with enthusiasm by hon. members opposite (Laughter.) In view of the fact that some members used the dining room and others did not he was afraid it would tax the ingenuity even of the Minister of Finance to bring in a Bill equitably to meet the case so far as individual members were concerned.

said there was some misconception. If there was any blame anywhere it attached to the Select Committee, which sat still and did nothing. Last year he impressed upon the committee that it should increase its charges. When the Union Parliament was first summoned to meet he, with his due regard for the dignity of Parliament, thought it would be as well to arrange that the Railway Catering Department should take the matter in hand until a Standing Committee was appointed. When that committee was appointed he continued the arrangement, because he thought it was the wish of Parliament. Economists did not always practise what they preached. He could unfold a tale of requests made to him to spend money on useless things by some people who were very eloquent on such occasions as those. It was rather a cheap way of obtaining popularity. As far as the railways were concerned, he would be very happy to have done with the matter, and next session he did not propose that the Railway Catering Department should continue the work.

said no hotel-keeper or caterer in this city had ever approached him on this matter.

referred to the item “Expedition to Northern Africa, £11,000.” He asked the Minister whether this expedition was absolutely necessary, and whether, after a statement made by the Minister of Mines to a deputation of farmers in Middelburg, in which he said that a serious crisis had arisen in connection with the ostrich feather industry, the Minister added that it was impossible for him to tell the farmers present what the trouble was, but that if they bound one of their number to secrecy he would tell him. Did the Minister deny that?

By whom?

Does he deny that at Middelburg the farmers were greatly alarmed by a statement made?

By whom?

asked the Minister whether, after the farmers had bound Mr. Gadd, one of their number, to secrecy, he told him what the serious danger was?

I shall give you the facts.

supposed that the Minister would admit that the money was voted because of a great crisis in the feather industry. That danger was realised in March last, but the Government did not act until July or August. Why had the Government waited these months when they meant to act? If the expedition was necessary the Government had been lax in allowing this delay.

said he would give the precise facts, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort seemed to be under a misapprehension regarding a statement he was said to have made at Middelburg about something dreadful threatening the industry. He said nothing of the kind. He went up to open an agricultural school at Grootfontein. He found the ostrich farmers assembled there and the evening before his arrival Mr. Thornton, who was in the service of the Government and had certain information about the industry, made a vague statement, which rather gave the impression that there was a danger. This impression having got abroad at the conference the farmers saw him (Mr. Malan) the following day, and said the report that was going around the country was going to injure them. They asked whether it was true, and whether the could satisfy them as to the nature of the secret? He (Mr. Malan) then said that there was no danger threatening the industry, but Mr. Thornton was in possession of facts which might be of benefit to the industry, and that he had no objection to explaining the position to two of the men in order to allay the discussion.

They were sworn to secrecy?

Yes; because if that fact became known it was bound to injure us—the fact that Mr. Thornton had in his mind, that by getting some ostriches from Barbary we would be improving the ostrich feather industry before other people forestalled us by getting the birds and creating a competing industry. I said that this was an important matter for the Government to investigate, and an expedition was sent to investigate this statement of Mr. Thornton’s.

said that the Minister had not answered his question. If in March the Minister considered there was a serious menace to the industry, why had he allowed so many months to elapse before starting the expedition.

said that their information was that the expedition could not get into that part of the world safely at that time, and they had to wait for a more favourable season.

asked the Minister whether, if it was a serious menace to the industry for Barbary birds to be sent elsewhere, whether he was going to capture all the birds in Barbary? Because otherwise the menace would be greater than ever, and they would have wasted £11,000 on a wild goose chase. (VOICES: “Wild ostriches.” (Laughter.) It was something in the bird line. They would have wasted that money and put the rest of the world up in the Barbary business. A more inept thing was never undertaken. It was all the more so as there was a man in Berlin, Mr. Hagenbeck, a collector of wild animals, who had got Barbary ostriches and bred from them, and anyone who wished could get an improved Barbary bird from him. In the face of that they had wasted £11,000 in sending Mr. Thornton to Nigeria. He hoped that he would not fall among the Tuaregs.

referred to the additional amount of £5,500 to meet expenditure in the investigation of gal-lamziekte and East Coast fever. The restrictions in regard to East Coast fever were ruining a great number of the German immigrants in his district. It was all very well to talk of closer settlement, but these people were the best settlers they ever had in the country, and attention should be paid to their wants.

said that he also wanted some information about that £11,000, and he thought he had as much right as any hon. member—if not more—in that House to ask for that, because he represented a district which was the most influential in regard to ostriches in the Province. He wanted to know what had happened to these ostriches, what the Government’s intentions were with regard to them, and how many of these birds there were in this country. He was also very desirous of knowing what the Government was doing to stop the export of ostriches, because that was a most important question to that country. What was the intention of the expedition? There had been no demand for birds from Barbary, and though protection had been asked for the ostrich industry, nothing in that direction had been done. Nothing had been done last year, and nothing this. When would the export be prohibited?

said he would like to ask the Minister for Agriculture whether the Government was taking into its own hands the appointment and payment of inspectors in districts where the Government had agreed to supplement the contributions of Divisional Councils in connection with dipping.

said he thought the Government might give the House some information with regard to the expenditure of £11,000. He asked if this matter was in the mind of the Government when the House was sitting last year, and if that were so, why was nothing said about it then? Why was the House not taken into the confidence of the Government? £11,000 was being spent in order to protect the interests of the ostrich industry. Might they not be told the details? How many ostriches had been purchased? Where were these ostriches? Would the people concerned be called upon to make some contribution over this matter? Then there was Mr. Hagenbeck, whom the Prime Minister refused to’ see. Perhaps he would tell the House why.

said he wanted some information with regard to item 6. They had £5,500 for research investigation in regard to cattle diseases, and then they had this treasure hunt in the North of Africa. He thought the people who had to do with the ostrich industry were able to protect themselves in case of need. He pointed out they had a little animal scare, and the Government spent £5,500 without the authority of Parliament. He had not seen the same thing done when it was a question of human life.

asked for some information with regard to the branding officers sent to the Transkeian Territorities. He was told that in one instance the branding officer was unable to give orders to the natives in their own language.

asked what the Government intended to do in connection with the cure of gal-lamziekte discovered by Mr. Edwards.

said that East Coast fever was a particularly troublesome disease, and he hoped the hon. member for King William’s Town would use all his influence to prevent the weakening of the restrictions on transport. Failing those restrictions there was great danger. Before they could proclaim the district, they must first have a sufficient number of dipping tanks. When the disease broke out it was necessary to take drastic action, not for the purpose of worrying the farmers, but in order to protect them. If transport were permitted in infected districts, the disease would be a danger to those even who dipped their cattle. He could not at present abandon the restrictions in King William’s Town. He had read the report of the public meeting, and regretted that the public had adopted such an attitude. It would be better if they met to consider the question of constructing dipping tanks for common use. He had informed the Mayor and the chairman of the meeting that the restrictions would not be applied to farms where they had dipping tanks, and that the instruction would come into operation on the 1st June next. More cattle inspectors had been appointed, but it was necessary to have an inspector present at every dipping tank. They could buy cheap testing machines which made the inspector’s presence superfluous. The item £5,500 for fighting gal-lamziekte was money destined for the inquiry by Dr. Theiler, and for additional stations. He (the Minister) attached very little value to the cure which was said to have been discovered by Edwards. The Government had accepted his offer, and submitted a draft agreement, over the signing of which there appeared to be some difficulty, which, however, would no doubt be overcome. If the hon. member for Tembuland would give the names, his complaint would be inquired into. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had not spoken so seriously as last year, when he had alluded ominously to the possible destruction of the ostrich breeding industry.

I never said any such thing. What I said was that the ostrich farmers were in a state of great unrest because it was stated that they were threatened with one of the most serious dangers that they had ever had before them. I said that it was the duty of the Government to tell us whether this danger existed or not.

replied that he had expected the last speaker to praise the Government for what they had done. Last year he (the Minister) had made it clear that there was no danger for the industry, notwithstanding the articles in the newspapers. There was no danger then, and there was no danger now. Something of importance had then reached the ears of the Government and some of the ostrich farmers. The Government had called a few of those farmers together, and had informed them of what the Government had learnt, and all that had been done had been done on the advice of the farmers. The Government had been informed that a certain kind of bird was obtainable in Barbary, which would improve the local birds, and Messrs Thornton, Bowker and Smith were sent to make inquiries. They had had many difficulties to overcome. The country was difficult, negotiations had to be entered into, and it further appeared that, owing to the weather the Commission could not go there before August. Before his departure for England, the speaker had done all he could to hurry the matter up, and had then left it in the hands of his colleague. After making inquiries the Commission had reported that they could buy a certain number of birds. The speaker had thereupon called the ostrich farmers together, and shown them the report, upon which the Government had decided to buy the birds. When they arrived here, so far as they were not required by the Government, the birds would be sold. He doubted whether they would get the number of birds that they expected. They would be sold, and there was no need to fear a great loss.

said the Prme Minister was again defending the policy of locking the stable door after the horse had gone, in connection with the outbreak of East Coast fever in the Eastern Province. In Natal they had been experimenting for veers, and had proved that, if a man would dip, he would save his cattle. The Government knew of this danger threatening the Eastern Province but failed to enforce dipping. If the Prime Minister went to Natal, he would find that the farmers were no longer afraid of East Coast fever. The Prime Minister had the effrontery to call the Natal members together recently and suggested that the man who had been largely responsible for making the tests in dipping, as opposed to the system of inoculation—Col. Watkins Pitchford—should go. because there was some jealousy between him and Dr. Theiler. He would like to know if he had settled that difficulty yet. Col. Watkins Pitchford had proved that if cattle were dipped every three days, they would clean the veld in a few months. They proved that very largely at their own expense in Natal, and the Cape Province would have very good reasons to regret it if they did not insist on dipping being enforced. He was of opinion that the Government were entirely to blame for the outbreak in the Eastern Province.

said that he regretted the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Becker) had spoken as he did, and blamed the Government. He ought to be thankful to the Government for what it had done, and there was no truth in saying that that £11,000 had been thrown away. The Government had spent a good deal for the improvement of horses and other cattle, and why should not the same be done for ostriches? They should not take such narrow views.

said that, though he did not propose to raise any discussion on this question, he was not perfectly satisfied with the explanation given by the Prime Minister. There would be another opportunity of discussing the policy of the right hon. gentleman in this matter when they came to the Estimates. He would like to know how the right hon. gentleman proposed to administer the compulsory dipping clauses? Was the Government going to appoint its own inspector, I paid by the Government itself, and was it going to relieve those districts which were now under the compulsory dipping clause of the cost of inspection and the administration of the Act?

said that he would like to know whether the reward for a remedy for eradicating gal-lamziekte would also be given to other people, if they came forward with something that proved efficacious? He had been informed that a Mr. Van Zyl had also discovered a remedy which was said to have had good results.

said he feared that his hon. friend the member for Weenen, though he had said many things that were true, had not been practically acquainted with the working of matters in dealing with East Coast fever. It was true that their chief veterinary surgeon had devised means of dealing successfully with East Coast fever, but he (Mr. Wiltshire) strongly deprecated the tone in which the hon. member had spoken. He thought it was quite unnecessary, and he wished to dissociate himself from it. He was of opinion that the Prime Minister had done the best that could be done under the circumstances.

said he had a fault to find with the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman had generalised in his statement about the ostrich question. He (Mr. Becker) did not for one moment object to the money being spent, but what he did say was that it seemed to him a peculiar policy to spend £11,000 to get choice birds in this country and allow free export to go on as it had been going on. He (Mr. Becker) represented the biggest individual ostrich farmers, and not one of them was consulted on the subject—(hear, hear)—nor was he approached. In fact they were kept in the dark.

said that he hoped the Government would deal with that matter of the export of ostriches that session. As to the question of the Barbary expedition the Government had consulted him, and he had consulted prominent ostrich farmers of his district, but the matter was one which, it could easily be understood, would have to be kept quiet. The ostrich farmers had promised that they would purchase these ostriches, and so the Government need not lose anything at all of that £11,000. The whole secret was that they found they could improve their birds by cross-breeding: and that they were talking steps to get the birds which were required. Of course the purchase had to remain a secret.

said the Prime Minister had not touched the point he (Sir Thomas) had raised. He (Sir Thomas) had not criticised the vote, but the action of the Government. He wanted his hon. friend to tell them how many Barbary birds had been purchased and how the birds referred to by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn were to be disposed of.

said some hon. members seemed to take, it for granted that Government should have expended this extraordinary amount on the protection of the ostrich feather industry. He would like, as an ordinary member, who was not interested in ostriches but in economy, to protest against the Government taking any action of that kind whatsoever. (Hear, hear.) Surely it was up to the members of the ostrich feather industry, which was a very wealthy one, to protect themselves, and if it were found necessary to import other birds they should spend the money out of their own pockets. (Cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Orr said he would like to revert to the extraordinary speech of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler), in which he had the audacity to take the Minister to task for calling the Natal members together to explain to them the position that had arisen in the Bacteriological Department. The Minister explained to them the extraordinary position in which he found himself owing to the jealousy between Dr. Theiler and Dr. Watkins Pitchford. The inference that would be likely to be drawn from the speech of the hon. member for Weenen was that the Prime Minister liad endeavoured to minimise the work that had been done by Dr. Pitchford. He (Mr. Orr) ivas present at that meeting, and he did not think that it should go forth to the country that the Prime Minister had in any way minimised the excellent work done by Dr. Pitch-ford.

said he was rather surprised at the Prime Minister saying that the ostrich farmers had been consulted. He (Mr. Heatlie) also represented a large ostrich district, but he was not consulted on the subject. When the birds arrived here, however, he hoped they would be consulted. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought the Government had acted very well in this matter. (An HON. MEMBER: “Slow.”) Slow, perhaps, but better late than never. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said about the ostrich feather industry being able to help itself. He would remind the House that the old Cape Parliament had voted large sums of money for the purpose of importing horses. Horse-breeding was an old and well-established industry: in the Cape, which at one time exported horses to India and other countries. What was everybody’s business was nobody’s business, and farmers were slow to combine. It was impossible for the Government to consult every farmer upon this matter, and it was essential to the best interests of the industry that this expedition should be sent. They knew it was only the very best improved feathers that commanded the best sale. He was assured that the Government would lose nothing by the transaction. It was not the intention of the Government to set up an ostrich farm. This was merely an experiment.

said that what seemed to be wanted was to ask them to vote money that had already been spent. This was not a question of scopping some disease that had broken out among ostriches, it was a matter of getting the birds from the depths of Barbary. Under the circumstances he thought that they ought to be thankful that this amount was only £11,000 instead of £100,000.

pointed out that they had not got the birds yet. The ostrich feather industry was one of the wealthiest, largest and best paying industries in South Africa. If no birds were got then the Government would lose the money entirely. They had a great many ostrich farmers who could easily each have spent £1,000 if they wanted to. Considering the wealthy position of the industry he did not think the Government had acted rightly in spending this money. He pointed out that though private individuals had taken the risk of importing sheep and horses no such risk had ever been taken by the ostrich farmer. He thought that the Government had acted wrongly in this matter.

was surprised at the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The sum of £11,000 was being spent to help one of the most important industries in the country. It was all very well to say that the farmers could have attended to this by co-perative effort but the Government were only doing their duty. In the case of Angora goats the farmers had themselves sent to Asia for good animals. With merino sheep farmers were equally enterprising in improving the breed by the importation of good animals. Nothing was said by hon. members opposite of the £350,000 Which the farmers paid back in railway rates. In other directions, too, farmers contributed to the general revenue of the country. Now an objection was raised to the expending of £11,000 on a very laudable object.

said that the last hon. member who spoke had given no answer to the question. He (the speaker) raised a question on which he asked the Prime Minister to give some information to that House. He was sorry that the hon. gentleman had not answered the questions that he had raised. The point was that the country had to embark the money. He was for helping the industry as far as possible, but he would refer the committee to the amount of £240 down on the Estimates for investigation work. Surely the industry should be able to find such a small sum. Some hon. members who could have given valuable advice were not invited to the famous conference at Pretoria, and the result was that now they had Government supporters saying that the Government had done a thing that it should not have done. He hoped that the Prime Minister would give the information, as he thought that the committee was entitled to know all about the matter. If the Prime Minister could not have consulted the House last session then it could have waited until this session.

said that he was not surprised at the vote. He had not been in the House very long, but he was never surprised at any vote that was brought forward. He pointed out that there were £50,000 or £60,000 on the Estimates that were being asked for for the benefit of two sections of the community—the landowners and the farmers. He had listened carefully to the whole of the debate, but he had yet to learn what the expedition was for and what had been the result of the expedition. He was not surprised that the sub-leader of the Opposition had not objected to the principle of spending £11,000 in the interests of this very wealthy industry. It seemed to be simply a question of sharing the spoils. The point was as to who would get the most of the public money. He was aware that the hon. member was interested in where these birds were and at what figure they were to be obtained. Possibly he was interested in them, but of that he was not aware. The hon. member for Denver was the only hon. gentleman to draw attention to the fact that where money and financial interests were concerned, this House gave very great attention to the question; but where the welfare of the people—the lives of men, women, and children—was concerned, they did not pay much attention. He would move the reduction of this vote by £11,000 (being the item F 4, expedition to Northern Africa), because he thought they had not had sufficient information given them.

said that for once he agreed with the hon. member for Georgetown, and would support the amendment that the vote be reduced, unless the Prime Minister could give them more information about the expenditure.

said the Government could go on the pound for pound principle to a maximum of £50 for cattle inspectors appointed by Divisional Councils, in accordance with the Cattle Cleansing Bill brought forward by the hon. member for Border. Where, however, the disease broke out, as was now the case in East London and King Wil liam’s Town, the Government would appoint more inspectors, and bear the expense. The offer which had been made to Edwards for his cure of gal-lamziekte would not be repeated for other cures. There were so many people who alleged that they had discovered cures that the experts would have to spend the whole of their time in examining them instead of themselves seeking for a cure. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort asked why the Government had waited from March to August before sending the expedition to Barbary. The hon. member would agree that they could not send just anybody on such an expedition. They had first tried to find someone in the Government service, and had finally appointed the chief of the agricultural school at Middelburg. Then they consulted ostrich farmers like Messrs. Schoeman, Rabie, Oscar Evans, Fourie, and other well-known farmers. They could not consult everybody, and consequently the criticism by the hon. member for Ladismith was unsound. The farmers advised the Government to buy the birds, and they could not now censure the Government for the action taken. The latest cable from the expedition mentioned that they would probably not get more than 100 birds, though the farmers had asked for 500. When they arrived they would certainly find buyers, and most probably there would prove to be no loss. They had received information that birds were obtainable, which would greatly improve the local stock, but of course they could not publish that information. There was only one way to follow, and they had followed that. No doubt something could be said in support of the statement that ostrich farmers were rich enough to send their own expedition, but on the other hand the Government could not publish its information, and it would have been unfair to disclose it to a few persons only. They had acted in the general interests of the industry, and even if the country lost a little money, they must admit that the industry would be greatly assisted by the expedition. The hon. member for Ladismith had asked why a law was not introduced to prevent the exportation of ostriches. The hon. member forgot, however, that the law already existed, and that there were similar laws in German South West Africa and in Mozambique. They were still negotiating with the foreign Governments to change the existing agreement into a treaty, and he hoped that the treaty would be decided on before the end of the session.

said that the right hon. gentleman’s ideas in regard to competition had undergone a great change. He remembered that not long ago he chided them on those benches, and said they did not want to import labour from Portuguese East Africa, and they did not want labour! from Europe. But the very excuse for this expenditure was apparently that the ostrich farmers in this country were to have à monopoly of ostriches. He was going to hunt the wilds of Barbary and the Sahara Desert to catch ostriches. Then he (Mr. Creswell) wanted to point out that while, for himself, he believed in encouraging anything that was really good for the country, when they took what was one of the most prosperous industries in the country and called a meeting of owners in that industry, men ot great standing, if those men could be got to co-operate so far as to go up to Pretoria and consult the Government, those men had sufficient means of their own, and were quite well able to co-operate to the extent of putting up the necessary money for that expedition to Barbary, the results of which expedition, although they might ultimately benefit the country, would be primarily for their own benefit. He should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this expenditure of £11,000, plus the amount which he saw on the Estimates for next year, nas going to be recouped by the sale of 100 ostriches? Were these birds to be put up to auction? If this country were going to spend large sums of money to assist those who, more than any other section, were able to assist themselves, this country was going to be run in for a very heavy expenditure.

said he was not a blind supporter of the Government like the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. a member for Maritzbourg, North, but he represented a large number of the best class of stock farmers in Natal, and the great majority of them were of opinion that the Prime Minister’s management of the Agricultural Department was a hopeless failure. He claimed the right to raise this matter without being considered impolite. The Minister had not replied. He (Mr. Meyler) did not attribute it to discourtesy, but to incapacity, because he was well aware that the Prime Minister bad not studied that question in Natal, but had pinned his faith in Dr. Theiler, who was working on different lines from Colonel Pitchfiord. The latter was working to kill the tick which carried the disease, and Dr. Theiler to kill the disease, and the latter still wanted a couple of years in which to complete his cure. The Prime Minister was shutting his eyes to what had been done by Colonel Pitchford. The hon. member for Maritzburg North (Mr. Orr) had told the House that the Prime Minister did not suggest that Colonel Pitchford should be got rid of. The Prime Minister’s last words at that meeting were: “Well, gentlemen, I take it that you are going to leave the matter in my hands.” He (Mr. Meyler) protested, and said they were not going to leave anything to the Premier.

The Prime Minister also had the audacity to suggest to the meeting that if Colonel Pitchford were kept on in Natal, the Natal farmers would not be entitled to any of the sera made by Dr. Theiler—a most iniquitous suggestion. He (Mr. Meyler) took it that the Prime Minister’s idea was to encourage the Natal members to say that he could get rid of Colonel Pitchford if he wanted to. He (Mr. Meyler) would ask his question with all due humility, but he did not know if the Prime Minister wanted him to go down on his knees. It seemed to him that one could not criticise without being called rude, or ask awkward questions without being called discourteous. If the Prime Minister had taken the trouble to study Colonel Pitchford’s methods and to enforce them, there would not have been an outbreak of East Coast fever in the Eastern Province.

said that last year a body of members saw the Minister of Mines and asked him to show them the law which had been passed in German South-west Africa with regard to export of ostriches, but the Minister did not do so. Subsequently, however, they were informed that the Government had had the assurance of the German ConsulGeneral on the subject. But they were not told by the Minister of Mines that there was legislation on the subject in German South-west Africa, and they had absolutely no information on the subject, and since then they had had no information.

said he wanted to refresh the hon. member’s memory. Legislation on the subject undoubtedly did exist in German South-west Africa where they had imposed the same restrictions that we had. The authorities of German South-west Africa had given the Union Government a solemn assurance that they would not repeal their law without consulting the Union.

appealed to the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr.Andrews) to withdraw his proposal for the reason that the money had been spent and all the motions the House passed would not bring it back again. The hon. member would have his opportunity when the main Estimates came before the House to record his opinion of the action of the Government. The Exchequer Act gave the Government £300,000 to spend without the authority of Parliament, and Government had taken up the position that this matter could not be postponed without injury to the public interest. So that even if the hon. member for Georgetown obtained a majority for his motion that day he would not alter the position.

said surely there were such things as surcharges, and if the House refused to vote the money somebody would have to pay it, and it would not come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. A skilful attempt had been made to obscure the whole thing. The Government had plenty of opportunities to ask the House for the money last year, but it did not do so, and when hon. members asked why it did not do so they had contradictory statements. Hon. members on the Government side had brought up the question of harbours, which had nothing to do with the case, and they had insinuated that hon. members on the Opposition side had refused money for the development of the agricultural resources of the country. That was most unfair, because on the Opposition side they always were prepared to vote money in a legitimate and legal manner for the proper development of agriculture. He said that they had never refused money for the importation of bloodstock, and he thought that if it had first been proved to this House that this expenditure was necessary in the interests of the ostrich farming industry the vote would have been passed. They objected to the money being spent first and the House being asked afterwards.

said that in rising he had no desire to interfere with the differences of the Government. The Minister of Mines had stated that the delay in the sending of this expedition had been due to climatic conditions ; the Prime Minister had told them that the reason for the delay had been the fact that they could not get a suitable man.

I gave the two reasons.

pointed out that the Government had Mr. Thornton here who had since been sent, and whom he thought hon. members would agree was one of the best judges of ostrich feathers in the country. His hon. friend the member for Ladismith felt very much about the attitude of the Government. They introduced a Bill at the earliest possible moment, had it read a first and second time, and then put it away down on the paper so that he and other hon. members had no chance of discussing the measure in committee.

said he did not think that the Prime Minister required any defence. The explanation had been clear enough to satisfy the most exacting hon. member. The hon. member for Newlands laid it down that the Government should have come to the House.

You have not proved the necessity.

There is the necessity. He asked how the Government could have kept the secret if they had allowed the matter to be discussed on the floor of the House. Referring to statements of hon. members on the cross-benches, he said they knew that those gentlemen were prone to distorting facts, and referred to the newspaper statement which had been quoted by the hon. member for Commissioner-street on the previous day. The impression that had been conveyed to the House by that hon. member was entirely wrong.

said he did not express any opinion. He merely pointed out that the Prime Minister had two ideas—one when it affected the ostrich farmers and another when it affected the working man.

said that he would like to touch upon this question of East Coast fever. He would like some explanation with regard to compulsory dipping, A sort of defence had been made by the hon. member for Klip River, but he did not think that that defence had been adequate. It was sixteen months ago since they told the Prime Minister that East Coast fever would creep down from Natal into this Province. Now it was here. All the strides they had prophesied had taken place. All the mistakes they had prophesied had been made. What they wanted to know was the plan of campaign against the movements of the disease. He knew that it would not interest the farmers until their cattle had been swept out of existence. He pointed out that the presence of a dipping tank did not mean that there was compulsory dipping, and when he raised the question last year and said he thought that dipping was the best remedy, he was told that he was not an expert and that dipping was not a cure. He took it that the Prime Minister made that statement on the advice of his highest advisers. Dr. Theiler had once disagreed that dipping was the cure, and now that gentleman said that clipping was the cure. Farmers were quite willing to buy farms with ticks upon them. As he understood it, he saw that in the native territories transport was being suspended on the main roads, for fear of carrying the disease. Fifty yards from these main roads, however, the natives were trekking cattle, and they could not stop them. He did not think that the Government should relax their restrictions, but after the experience in Natal it was extraordinary that nothing seemed to be done. They had every reason to feel uneasy. They had not been able to tell him what was the reason for compulsory dipping, but if they expended a million then that money should be repaid by the farmers, and every farmer knew that. Had the Government got the powers to take necessary precautions to deal with farms before the disease had actually broken out?

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East always made it appear as if his theory were the only good one and all others useless. If the hon. member would go to the Minister’s office he would see what was being done. Such speeches merely aroused suspicion against the Department, which could not defend itself. One of the laws passed last year dealt specially with the question of building dipping tanks, but the Department could not go from farm to farm to do that. The speaker had sent letters to the magistrates of East London and the Transkei, and urged them to do all they could with the Divisional Councils and the public to get the dipping tanks constructed. He had also sent the Chief Veterinary Surgeon to the Transkei, with Dr. Theiler and all other officials who could be spared, and he had directed those officials to hold meetings in order to urge the building of the tanks. The speaker had been requested to proclaim the district and to make dipping compulsory, but whilst he was ready to do that, he must first know whether there were sufficient tanks. He had found, as a fact, there was an insufficient number of tanks. He did not make dipping compulsory, because the regulation would have remained a dead letter. Ultimately proclamation had been made, but even to-day they found there were not sufficient tanks. The magistrate at King William’s Town had received instructions to use his influence to get all the people in the locations to use dipping tanks. East London asked for severer restrictions, and even for the prohibition of the permit system. King William’s Town, on the other hand, wanted to have no restrictions, and he thought that was wrong and dangerous. In a Department such as that of agriculture they were bound to follow the advice of experts. Colonel Pitchford had undoubtedly done good work. Dipping, however, did not cure East Coast fever where it already existed. It merely killed the ticks. He believed in dipping, and recommended it everywhere. So far as East Coast fever was concerned they were immeasurably better off to-day than last year. Many dipping tanks had been constructed, and, given the co-operation of the farmers, they would certainly eradicate the disease. The speaker challenged the hon. member for Pretoria East to prove that his the Minister’s) policy was to fence and kill, as against the dipping policy of the hon. member. On the contrary, the speaker had always preferred to dip, and the hon. member was unable to prove his statement. He (the Minister) affirmed last year that South Africa was not ripe for compulsory dipping, and that was still the case. It was impossible at present to make dipping compulsory, and they must go one step at a time. District after district in the Cape was building the dipping tanks, but they were still insufficient in number. He had never said that the proper remedy against East Coast fever was to kill and fence.

said that the trouble they had was not that the restrictions were there, but that they were insufficient, as the Prime Minister did not seem to see the necessity of preventing the disease coming into a district free from it. Last year, during the whole course of the debate, their point was that unless action was taken, undoubtedly the disease would spread from the Transkei to the Eastern Province, and it did so spread. They urged the Government to put compulsory dipping into force in districts where it was asked for, and the Prime Minister promised he would. Now, it was in force in some of those districts, but not all, and there was a very long delay between April last year and January of this year, when it was put in force. The right hon. gentleman had the power in the Stock Diseases Act of last year to put compulsory dipping into force. What he wanted to put to the Prime Minister was that they were, it was true, attacking the disease in divisions in which it existed: of King William’s Town and East London ; but what were they doing in the districts of Alice and Peddie? He ventured to say, “Nothing.” And surely, in the interests of the country, it was necessary to attack the disease, not only in the districts where it was but to prevent it from spreading into other districts. Down in the Western Province they would find it would spread to them if they did not assist them in stopping it. What did the Prime Minister do in the division of East London? He said he sent officers to assist and encourage people; but there were large native locations on Crown lands in the district, and was there a single dipping tank in one of them? There was not one. One of their dangers was that of course, they could not do anything with the disease where they had large native areas unless the Government caused tanks to be built. The Government should compel people to dip in districts adjoining those where the disease had broken out. (Opposition cheers.)

said he would like to corroborate the statement made by the hon. member for Pretoria East about the position the Prime Minister took up last session. He said that dipping was not the proper remedy ; but shooting and fencing. He was glad to say that in the second portion of the session, the Prime Minister had become a convert to dipping. He should like the Prime Minister to tell them, in a sentence or two, how the stamping out of East Coast fever was progressing in the Territories which he represented.

said he regretted to hear the statement made by the Prime Minister. He understood the right hon. gentleman to say that, notwithstanding the serious calamity that was overtaking the cattle farmers in this country, he, as the Minister responsible for the welfare of agriculture in this country, was not prepared to put in force a measure for the stopping of this disease which he himself had admitted was the only measure that would stop it, i.e., the introduction of compulsory dipping in advance of the disease. Surely the Prime Minister would not look for votes in a matter of this sort but would recognise his responsibility, and face the consequences and try to stop the disease. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) spoke last year on the danger which threatened them If the Prime Minister had taken the responsibility, then they would not be faced with such a position as they found to-day. He urged the Prime Minister to exercise the powers conferred by legislation, or they would find that the disease would spread throughout the Cape Province, right down to the Docks of Cape Town, and cause a vast amount of ruin to the farmers of this country. (Hear, hear.)

said that, as the Prime Minister apparently was not going to reply in regard to East Coast fever, he would like to bring his attention back to the Barbary ostrich expedition. They had received absolutely no information about these ostriches, except that this country was about to receive 100 ostriches for an expenditure of £11,000. What he wanted to know was whether the country had got to stand the racket, or whether some arrangement had been made by the Government with those engaged in the industry, so that the country would be recouped to the extent of this £11,000 and the further £7,000 which was coming on later. Was this money to be expended by the country so that the pockets of a few individuals should benefit?

said that the Bill had met with the complete approval of the people in the northern districts. The Government had met them liberally. Whenever there was an application for money for a dipping tank it was readily granted. He maintained, however, that hardship would be caused if they made dipping compulsory.

said he would remind the Minister of the case of Mr. Frikkie Boshof, a Provincial Councillor. It had been brought up last year. He had not obeyed the Government’s order to construct a dip, and no notice was taken of the matter.

What is wrong with the law?

It is not what is wrong with the law, but what is wrong with the Government. He went on to say that he did not advocate that the Government should make compulsory dipping universal, but it should be insisted upon where it was necessary to check the disease. It was a simple policy. It required firmness, but there was no need to inflict hardship. There were districts in which dipping was badly needed. He had understood the Prime Minister to say that it was not right for him (the speaker) to question his word. He had not intended that, or anything discourteous. He had remembered the Prime Minister saying that he had cleared two districts, Pretoria and Waterberg, without the expenditure of a single penny on dipping. He had before him two quotations from Hansard. They had been hurriedly found. One supported the view taken by the right hon. gentleman. The other, he thought, he had legitimately constructed as a policy of slaughter and fencing. He regretted that he should have attributed to the Prime Minister that his own policy was contrary to dipping.

thought that dipping was the only preventive against East Coast fever. Dipping killed the tick, and thus many diseases were eradicated. The slaughtering of cattle only took place in isolated cases, where they could not wait for the building of a tank.

said that the Government would acknowledge that they had started in connection with Elast Coast fever as they had started in connection with the San Jose scale, with the stamping-out process. The Government then got frightened and adopted the dipping process.

The motion of the hon. member for Georgetown, for the deletion of the sum of £11,000, was negatived.

thought the amount for printing in a country of our population was very large. The vote in the Imperial Parliament, which included stationery, printing, paper, binding, printed books, salaries of the Stationery Department, and sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of the debates, came to £739,000. That was in a country of forty-four million people, which had an expenditure in the region of 150 millions. Calculated out, it meant at the rate of 4d. per head of the population. Here they spent a quarter of a million—not including the work of the Provincial Councils—in a country with a million and a quarter white inhabitants, which they would find worked out at 4s. per head. The Government was guilty of enormous extravagance in this regard. It had risen from £187,000 last year to £244,000, and on next year’s estimates the amount was £232,000. He recognised certain circumstances of the country which made for a very high printers’ bill. There was clause 137 of the Act of Union. Was that clause being carried out in a reasonable or an extravagant manner? Was it necessary that everything should be printed and distributed to every member in both languages? It was a most extravagant line to go upon, and one if they were prepared to forego, would mean considerable economy. There was another point. He saw by the Estimates that the Government proposed to increase the number of artisans at the Government Printing Works from 230 to 347. It was proposed to place these men at a centre where the following rates of pay obtained: Compositors, £5 15s. to £8 a week; readers, £6 to £6 10s. a week; machinists, £5 15s. to £7 10s. a week, and so on. In other words, the Government Works were to be increased 50 per cent, at the dearest centre in South Africa. Was that running the Union on business principles? Was it fair and reasonable to ask the country to extend works at which it was necessary to pay such very high wages? In other centres the work could be done just as well at a far cheaper rate. He instanced the rate of 70s. to 75s. paid in other centres as compared with the £5 15s. compositor at Pretoria. In other words, there was a difference of between 50 and 60 per cent, between the wages paid at the Government Works and those paid in other centres of South Africa, where the work could be equally well done. It was not running the country on business principle at all. He brought the matter to the notice of the House, for the time had arrived when they should not allow things to slide and take facts as accepted truths. He thought it time that this extravagance ceased and some economy was effected.

said he took exception to the printing of notices in both languages in the form as adopted by the Post Office in December last. He held one in his hand from which he quoted, showing one line in English followed by another in Dutch, and so on to the end of the notice. He raised the matter to point out the absurdity, and not out of disrespect to the sentiments of some hon. members of the House. But he did not like to see business instincts carried away by sentiment. He went on to refer to the fact that at Durban—which was an English centre—it was only possible at one time to obtain a Dutch copy of the Postal Guide. He did not suppose the Government knew this.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again. He did that out of respect to the chair, as there were no Ministers present. (Laughter.)

The motion was negatived.

said some very important matters had been raised during the afternoon. The question of dual language had been raised, but he would deal with that matter when he came to the Estimates. The Departments had been consulted regarding the requirements and the needs for the next 12 months. Then they must remember that additional work had been thrown upon them. Hon. members would see that the bulk of this work had been done by contract. This additional vote was fairly distributed between the printing works in Cape Town and those in Pretoria. There was no doubt that the printing bill was expensive, but they would go into it when the Estimates came up.

said that the question of bilingualism involved very large issues and it would not be wise perhaps to deal with the matter just then. The “Agricultural Journal” was being sold at 2s. a year and this did not pay for the production at all. He thought people would only be too glad to pay for the actual cost. He did not know whether the rumour was well founded that the printing works were to be removed from Pretoria.

said he regretted that the country had to spend such an enormous amount of money, but this was involved by the necessities of the case. They had not only two European races, but they had a native race, and a certain amount of printing had to be done for them. They were in what might be called a transitional stage, and a great deal of printing arose on that account. There had too been a great amount of printing occasioned by the many Commissions. The hon. member for Gardens was deliberately attempting to mislead the House in quoting wages paid to shop foremen and overseers as the average wages in Pretoria. He, however, was not prepared to advocate that the Government Printing Works at Pretoria should be abandoned to suit the interests of a few master printers in Cape Town. They must not forget that there were hundreds of men who would be put to great loss and inconvenience at Pretoria, when they were talking about moving bodies of men about the country and bringing work to Cape Town. He could assure the hon. member for Gardens if he brought those men to Cape Town they would not be bis best friends after the loss they had sustained. He submitted they should be like other countries and do their own printing. There was a great danger of causing a great monopoly in printing by means of the Government contract. They might have just as much a monopoly in regard to that as they had in regard to Hansard. There was no competition for Hansard. He had no doubt economies could be made, but not in the direction pointed out by the hon. member for Gardens, Cape Town.

said he did not want to enter into the squabble between Cape Town and Pretoria at all, nor did he wish to see the Government do all the printing. Of course, he knew there was a certain class of people who wished to see the Government do everything and have this country dragooned by a sort of bureaucracy, by the Government doing everything, but he did not think that the Minister shared those hopes; in fact, he was sure of it. The point he wished to bring to the notice of the committee was the enormous cost of printing. They spent now close on a quarter of a million of money on printing, and if they added to that the pensions they would find those two items (printing and pensions) came to nearly a million of money.

Three-quarters of a million.

No, rather more. £850,000 is spent on those two items alone. Proceeding, he said they had now an enormous revenue, and were prepared to go in for all sorts of things, some of which had been discussed that day. But the day would come when they would not be able to carry the burdens they were putting on this country, and he did not hesitate to raise his voice to draw the attention of the country to tnis fact on every possible occasion. He knew what it was when they had a large revenue coming in. He felt for the Minister, because he knew how he was besieged by people wanting things done and desiring Government billets. And there was another point about this printing he wished to draw attention to, and that was the inefficiency of it. Here they were discussing a large number of things in that House and in the committees of it, and they had not got the reporte from the Department. They were making bricks, as it were, without straw, and were laying themselves open, when they made a statement, to have it said of them that they were wrong in their figures. Those figures should be on the table of the House. Considering the importance of the industry and the effect it had on this country, it was nothing short of a scandal that they had not the Mines Report, or the figures, until the end of last year. Here they were perfectly ignorant of the greatest industry in the country. They only got the reports down to December of last year. Well, they were grateful for the report of the Railway Board. That had been laid on the table ; though a very imperfect report, it was true. Also they had no report from the Agricultural Department, one of the most important departments, and one that was spending a large amount of money.

None since Union.

I know. We have found that out upstairs, when we have been trying to throw a little light on the Estimates. But we got no reports. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said that now, with all this vast expenditure on printing, that was a state of affairs in this country at the present time. He did not want to labour the point now and go into a number of other things. He would have thought that by this time it would have been possible to have them printed and laid on the table of the House; or at any rate a portion of the census returns. It was very difficult to discuss the economic position of this country, and, indeed, the defence of this country, or many other such things, without those returns ; but still they spent £250,000 per year on printing. Now, that was not a satisfactory state of affairs. He had every confidence in the Minister for the Interior, and knew he had got the ability to tackle anything; but he did wish he would turn his mind on to this subject, and that was the backwardness of their reports and the absence of reports. It was a most important thing, ; considering the vast sum they paid for ; printing. (Opposition cheers.)

said that another point on which economy was possible was the voluminousness of their reports. Some of them were quite unnecessarily voluminous. Some hon. members had been going into the accounts upstairs, and now they were dealing with printing, he might point out that that amount had already been expended for the past year. But on the Estimates for the coming year he thought the House would have to deal with that question very carefully. His own view was that they did not gain much by discussing what the country had done ; but when they dealt with that question for the coming year he hoped the House would deal with the proposals very carefully. And he hoped they would go into the proposal, which the understood was embodied in the Estimates, for a considerable increase in this account. Unless that account in the main Estimates —which were not before the committee upstairs at all—was amended before it came into the main Estimates, and this House, and discussed in committee, the hon. Minister would have great difficulty in getting it through the House. (Hear, hear.)

jocularly said it would be a pity to stop some of the romantic publications which they had had in the shape of Blue-books, such for instance as “Bishop Grundtvig and the People’s School in Denmark.” (A laugh.)

said he was convinced that considerable economies could be effected in regard to printing. He recognised that there was an absence of departmental reports, and that some of the reports were far too voluminous. He thought that the report of the Minister of Justice’s Department could be taken as a guide of what the reports should be like.

drew the Minister’s attention to the large expenditure which was involved by the publication of the geological reports, which were not likely to appeal very much to the average man.

said that if they had geological surveys, obviously they must have geological maps.

said he was sorry and pleased to see this additional expenditure under this vote. He was pleased that the Government had come to the assistance of a very deserving case. He was sorry to see that this sum was required on account of the necessities of the case, and that the sum voted by Parliament last session was not sufficient to cover the demands of the position. He hoped that the Minister of Mines would take the earliest opportunity of seeing that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill was brought before the House in order to permanently deal with this matter.

said he regarded this vote for £15,000 with mixed feelings. He thought he would only be doing this duty if he moved a reduction by £1 for the purpose of testing the opinion of the House as to the action of the Government. He need not remind the House of what happened last session, and of the amendment moved by the right hon. the member for Victoria West., In the regulations which were issued, the Board apparently were permitted to raises a sum of £25,000 only. Very soon after that Board began its work the miners who applied for relief received what was very inadequate provision. The reason given was that, owing to the enormous number of applications and the fact that the Board had only £50,000 to draw upon, they had to be exceedingly careful in order to provide for all the claims. He instanced the case of one man who received an award of £8 15s. a month, and who had to keep his wife and family. Such a sum would not go far, as hon. members knew, in Johannesburg. Owing to the pressure of necessity, some of these men were being compelled to shorten their lives. Rather than the men should have nothing at all, he thought that nearly every voter in the country would agree to this money being given by Government. But it was utterly wrong that Government should have hesitated for so many months to fulfil their obligations, and to make use of the powers conferred upon them. (Hear, hear.)

said he wanted to put the matter from another point of view. He was not going to oppose the vote, because he recognised that it was in addition to the sung voted last year. But he wanted to raise this protest at once, so that their action on this matter should not be taken as a precedent in the future, because much larger demands were going to be made for miners phthisis—over £400,000—before this matter could adequately be settled. He did not see that the State was at all responsible in any shape or form. (Cheers.) Miners phthisis was a purely occupational disease, and arose from the occupation—(cheers)—and thus, as in other cases of workmen’s compensation, the money should be found by the employers. Why should the State bear the burden? The burden should fall on the two classes who shared in the mining profits—the mine-owners and the workmen. Also, the entire power with regard to the taking of precautions lay with these two bodies. What had the State to do with it? Why should the State bear the burden for one industry and not for others? The mine-owners and the workmen shared the profits, and they should contribute to the Compensation fund. Knowing the danger of their occupation, the workmen, out of the very handsome wages they were paid, should contribute to a compensation fund. It was very unjust to call on the taxpayers. (Hear, hear.)

said that the last time this painful matter was before the House, they were asked to vote £25,000. The House did so with reluctance, because it was driven into a corner, and it was distinctly understood that the £25,000 was the limit, until the matter was put on a definite basis. It was a surprise to find that the House was asked to vote another £15,000. The sum itself was not large—it was not much more than they were spending in chivvying Barbary ostriches. (Laughter.) But that was not the proper way to look at it, because they were laying down a precedent for the future. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) had rightly said, this was an occupational disease. Were they to lay it down that the State was responsible for occupational diseases? That was not the proper way to go to work, and he regretted very much indeed that the Minister of the Interior had come down on the House for the money. The Act passed last session said that any sum given by the State should be supplemented by an equal sum to be levied from the mine-owners, and that the accounts of the Phthisis Board should be audited by the Auditor-General and laid before Parliament. Parliament had the right to ask where were the accounts. (Hear, hear.) How did they know whether the mines had contributed, and how the money had been expended? This was really a very serious matter. Members treated the matter lightly ; they Thought it was a generous thing to give away £15,000 out of taxpayers pockets. Another point was: What steps are we really taking in this matter?” He heard that the Teport of the Miners Phthisis Commission was in the hands of the Government before Parliament met. Surely it would have been possible to have expedited matters a little, so as to have had it laid on the table—(cheers)—so that they could go into the matter with some knowledge. They had had an exceedingly interesting report about a mission to Denmark —(laughter)—but that might have stood over until they had had the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission. Parliament was treated like a lot of children by the Government. They were, asked to vote £15,000 without knowing the reason, except the vague stories they read in the newspapers. That was not the proper way to treat Parliament. It showed a contempt of Parliamentary institutions that they should be asked to do a thing of this sort, particularly in face of the understanding last year that £25,000 was to be the last sum voted before the whole matter was settled This was a serious thing—(hear, hear)—and not to be treated lightly, because they were laying down precedents for the future. They were allowing this Parliament to drift away from the control of money, and putting that control into the hands of Government. It was totally contrary to the first principles of the Constitution. What was Government doing in that matter?

It was not a matter for a jest ; it was a very serious matter indeed, and involved the lives and welfare of thousands of men and of a great industry upon which the country depended for its prosperity. Had they the true state of affairs before them yet? Only that day they had a report of a Commission which was sitting upon tuberculosis, that as soon as these natives got ill they were hustled into the train to die there or in their kraals ; and that was a statement made by Dr. Thornton, the medical officer of the Government ; and to him (Mr. Merriman) it struck a chill to think of these things which were going on. The Minister of Mines smiled. Only some natives’ lives! Only some people to oatch his disease—a preventable disease—wt were hustled into trains and back to the kraals! His hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs read some statistics the other day which had shocked the House—for a time. What were they doing? He had received only that evening a letter upon that very subject from a person holding a responsible position in Johannesburg His hon. friends who were the chiefs of that industry would—he hoped they could—contradict these things. The hon. member quoted from the letter, to the effect that there was no doubt whatever, in the writer’s opinion, that the Government was on the wrong tack in merely spending the money on compensation—compensation might be necessary, but it did not remedy the evil. The new mining regulations would mitigate the evil if they were used, but they were not used as they should be. The Government should spend money on appointing special inspectors to go on each mine, and see what was being done to stop the dust, improve the ventilation, and the like; and until some such step was taken, they had many groups and individual mines doing less than nothing.

Who is it?

He is a responsible person. You may take my word for it. Continuing, he said that here they were, after six weeks of session, after they had done such an enormous amount of business, with that gigantic evil staring them in the face, and they were asked to vote a sum of money in a light and airy way without in any way trying to cope with the evil; and the only way in which it could be done was to have a stringent Act and see that it was carried out. He felt very strongly upon it, and voted for it with the greatest reluctance, but he would vote for it on the score of humanity. It was a mere palliative.

said that he desired to protest on principle against a further sum of money being paid by the State. Although he hoped that the motion would be withdrawn, he thought that something must be done for these people. He had thought that no further sums of money were to be spent by the State ; and the right hon., member who had just spoken had amended the Bill last session in such a way that the effect was that no further money could be expended by the State. It was distinctly understood that the mine owners above were to contribute any additional sums required. Evidently there had been some misunderstanding regarding the law, but whatever might be the case, there was no doubt that there were persons who were suffering and in great distress on the Witwatersrand ; and be had it on the best authority that there were at least 200 persons waiting for assistance from the Board. He would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he considered the sum sufficient to meet such cases as would arise before the necessary legislation was passed and in force. He would remember the short time the sum voted last session had lasted; it hardly touched the fringe. The sooner they knew what the true state of affairs was, the better; and, in his opinion, the Minister was not making adequate provision. The State, however, should not have to pay for what the mines were really responsible for; this was ah occupational disease, and if there were an ample water supply and ample ventilation, these things would not occur. The miners were not so much to blame as those who employed them. He submitted that, on principle, the State should not be called upon to do what it was doing, as it would not have the effect which they desired. What they wanted was that the death of a miner should be made as expensive to the mine-owners as possible, because only then they would stop the present state of affairs. They did not want the miners to receive compensation ; what they wanted was that the miners should live in good health as long as possible. (Hear, hear.)

said that they had listened with the greatest attention and interest to the speech of the right horu member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), but when he heard the sentiments expressed by some of the hon. members on the cross-benches he began to wonder sometimes that these hon. members had the audacity to come there and say they represented the working men of South Africa. They seemed to have one idea in all their agitations, and it was this method that alienated the sympathy of those who would otherwise be with them. When there was any subject that had to do with the working man they always had something to say about a certain section of the hon. members of that House. (Cries of “No, no.”) It was no use their repudiating that statement, because it was true. He had heard it in that House over and over again. When the case of phthisis, affecting the working man, came on, they objected to the State paying a penny. These hon. members, when they discussed questions, did not discuss them from the point of view of the State. The hon. member for Commissioner-street had candidly told the House that they wanted to make this matter as expensive as possible. Surely when hon. members came to that House and said that they represented these poor men, they could not blame him when he said he looked upon what they said as hollow hypocrisy. They must not blame him if he had to say that he had come to the conclusion that they were not actuated by deep sympathy, by humanity, but by a desire for vengeance against the people whom they said were responsible. He did not think that it, laid in the mind of any hon. member of that House to say that any individual, or group of individuals, was responsible. He said that it was not fight to hurl that charge at any member or any group of members of that House. It was an unfortunate disease that was caused by a combination of circumstances. Their duty was not to throw mud at one another, but to find out some way by which this disease could be prevented. Surely the hon. member for Jeppe would not say that this disease was caused by the hon. member sitting in front of him. He had often felt that he would like to support the hon. member for Jeppe in some of his contentions, but he had always been chilled by the method and manner in which the hon. member for Jeppe attacked certain hon. members in that House. If the hon. member for Jeppe and his colleagues wished to impress the House with what they said, then they must adopt a better tone. So long as the present methods of those hon. gentlemen prevailed he could not support them, however much he sympathised with the men whom they said they represented in that House.

said he hoped the House would understand that those connected with the mining industry felt the horrors of this disease, and did not in the least repudiate their share of the liability. They felt the terrible scourge as much as anybody, because they were intimately connected with the industry, and therefore it made it all the harder to place the case (before the House. The disease purely and simply was an occupational disease, but much more serious than miner’s phthisis was the germ of tuberculosis. That was the trouble. Miner’s phthisis, serious as it was, was not that which finally caused the death of the man who was attacked. It was one of the great difficulties in dealing with the disease that most of the deaths that occurred were generally traceable to tuberculosis. They contended, therefore, that the State should bear a share at the responsibility. He pointed out that there were many men on the mines who probably came into the mines with the tuberculosis germ in their systems. Was the mining industry responsible for the deaths of these men? The more the matter was investigated the more it would be seen that the whole of the responsibility could not be thrown on the mining industry. It had been said that there should be stringent mining regulations, and thát these should be enforced for the purpose of attempting to stamp out the disease. The stronger the regulations, the more stringently they were carried out the better it would be for the mining industry as a whole. There were two classes to be dealt with in this matter. First there were the managers, who were in control of the men, and in the second place there were the men themselves. It was idle for anyone in that House to say that the miners were not careless. Their trade was of a description that made for carelessness, and, therefore, they wanted stronger regulations in order to make these men careful. And the best way of attaining that object would be to make the men pay some contribution to the fund that was raised for the purpose. They recognised that the mining industry was responsible for a portion of the compensation, but what they said was that this contribution must be on a fair and reasonable basis. They must look at the matter in a reasonable way and not be carried away by their feeling of the horrors of the disease and do something that would be indefensible and that had not been done by any other country in the world. It was necessary that there should be very careful investigation before any legislation dealing with the matter was placed upon the Statute Book. He could not understand the hon. member for Cape Town getting up and saying that it was an occupational disease and that the mining industry was responsible for it all. It displayed the grossest ignorance of the subject. (Laughter.) Yes, he would repeat—though he was a friend who sat on that side of the House—that the hon. member had displayed the grossest ignorance in dealing with the subject. Continuing, he said that a highly technical matter such as the one that was being discussed needed years of study before anyone was able to speak upon it with authority. Much as he was in favour of legislation they ought to see that before they put a measure upon the Statute Book they should not come to regret it. He would say to the right hon. the member for Victoria West, that he had gone through the figures and he found that 22½ per cent, of the mines on the Rand made less than 3s. 6d. per ton. Everyone thought that the mining industry should bear its fair share of taxation, but he did ask hon. members to study the question. Farmers themselves depended to a great extent upon the working of these mines. The mines, it was obvious, must he worked, and therefore they should be careful not to do anything that they might regret. With regard to ventilation, again, of course he believed they could very easily overdo this point. Steps had been taken to reduce this dust. It was believed in some quarters that the mines were oblivious of the scourge. No people were more anxious to take every step possible to do away with this dust than the mine owners. He did not believe there was a mining industry in the world that had done so much as the mining industry on the Rand for the welfare of the workers.

The Minister in charge has made no explanation of these charges.

I have not had any opportunity.

said that surely this was not the proper time to raise this question, but when the vote was before the House they could deal with it then.

said he had been waiting for an opportunity to rise and make an explanation, but the fact was that if he spoke early he was criticised, and if he spoke late he was criticised. (Laughter.) He hoped the House would confine itself to the vote of £15,000 for the current year, and there would be an opportunity of going into the general question later on. He hoped they would realise that Government was dealing with this matter seriously. Continuing, the Minister said on a previous occasion—he thought it was a few days ago—that he hoped to have the report of the Commission printed in English and Dutch before the end of this week, and he was informed he would have it on Saturday. He would lay it on the table of the House on Monday. What the hon. member for Yeoville had said was perfectly true. There was a good deal of sentiment about this matter, without full information, and that was the reason why they could not pass the Bill last session. They had appointed a Commission which had gone into the matters which the right hon. member for Victoria West referred to, and he would get the facts in their report; and as soon as Parliament and the country had had the opportunity of studying the report for a few days, he proposed to introduce a Bill that would deal with the future. That was exactly what the Government was doing, and it was the earnest intention of the Government to do everything in their power to pass that Bill that session. (Hear, hear.) Now, as regarded this vote, and they should not now reopen the general question. What did the House do last session when they found they could not deal with the whole question? They passed that Act No. 34 of 1911. That was legislation in the dark, very largely. They did not know what the liability would be.

Why did you bring in the Bill?

Because we felt we had to do something, and that to postpone matters for another twelve months would only make matters worse. Proceeding, the Minister said that on the Estimates a sum of £25,000 was placed; but, of course, it was done in the dark. It was quito true that clause 2 was amended ; but subsequent to the passing of that the mines which fell under clause 2 were asked to contribute £25,000, because it was thought that £50,000 would be sufficient to carry them over to the end of March, 1912. and then they could deal with the new situation created by the new Bill. They found, when the Commission got to work, that there were more applicants than were expected, with the result that by the beginning of this year they found that there were about 200 cases more than were anticipated, and they could not pay out everything until the end of March. And they calculated on the basis of the comparatively small compensation given—it was the best they could do at the time. It was reported that they would require to the end of March an additional £30,000. The Government considered the question of raising another £30,000 from the companies. But they took legal advice, and it was stated that they could not do that very well. Having levied the pound per pound they had exhausted their power, and they had to put up a further amount so as to raise anything further from the mines, and it was acting on that legal opinion that they said “We are dealing with a serious state of affairs. Let us ask Parliament for another £15,000.” And the companies were asked to contribute an amount of £15,000, and that was the position. That £30,000 would be spent under the Act by this temporary Commission, and would carry them over to the end of the present financial year. It had nothing to do with the permanent question. The whole question of what they would do in the future, after March 31, would come up after they had discussed this report ; and that would be the basis of the Bill which Parliament would have this session. He did not think he need labour that any further. The companies had put up their £15,000 ; and Parliament would not be asked, on the Estimates, again for an amount of money under this Act ; but they would come forward with general legislation, which would settle the matter once for all. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. Minister had not answered his question whether the accounts of the Board would be laid on the table.

said that no time could be wasted when spent on legislation of this sort. Years ago, while the hon. member for Yeoville was studying this question, the Labour party were talking about it and educating the people up to it. They said this was an occupational disease and that the whole of the burden should fall upon the mining companies, upon the men who filled their pockets at the expense not only of the work, but of the lives of these miners. He was not disposed to agree with those who said that the State was not somewhat responsible for this condition of affairs. But as a general principle, although he agreed that the public should pay for its neglect in the past, yet he maintained that in the future it should not fall upon the government, nor should it fall upon the most injured section of the public, the miners themselves.

said he thought that the committee would agree with the Minister of Mines that they should not have what amounted to a second reading debate on a Bill which they had not yet seen. The Minister had made it perfectly plain that the opposition which was manifested to the Bill introduced by the Minister of the Interior when in charge of the Department of Mines, was perfectly justified, because the present occupant of that office had told them most distinctly that last year the Government had no knowledge of the subject. He thought it was also clear from what the Minister of Mines had said that the people connected with the mines had been in no way backward in doing what they could to get a settlement of this question. After all, last year the Government had to do in the end what they on that side suggested at the beginning they should do. He had no fault to find with the statement of the Minister of Mines, except that he thought he might have made some reference to the fact that weeks ago the mine owners agreed to contribute their share of what was required without waiting for an appropriation by Parliament, as set out in the Bill passed last session. As to the question of whether this was an occupational disease, he did not propose to go into that subject, but he would like to commend to hon. members a study of the reports issued by the Royal Commissions which had been sitting in Queensland and Western Australia. Both these reports showed conclusively that the question of miners phthisis (silicosis) was greatly complicated by tuberculosis. Very little, as they knew, had as yet been done by the Government in this country as regarded the spread of tuberculosis, and he thought they might take it that, were it not for the prevalence of tuberculosis, which made people less able to contend with the other disease, the matter would be very much simplified. As regarded the attitude of hon. members on the cross-benches, there were, he claimed, no people who had done more to impede a satisfactory settlement of this question than those members. He would just add that these commissions, after careful investigation of the subject, recommended that compensation should be paid in three instalments, partly by the companies, partly by the Government, and partly by the men.

said they had been spending the afternoon talking about the members’ refreshments and Barbary ostriches, yet when they came to that vote the Minister of Mines begged them not to go into the general question. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) he (Dr. MacNeillie) often thought that the hon. members on the cross-benches did not represent labour, but misrepresented it. But on the question of miners phthisis he was entirely with them. Hon. members could not appreciate the gravity of the disease. It was only men like the hon. member for Denver (Dr. Macaulay) and himself, who had spent years among the miners and saw the valuable lives lost through it, who could fully appreciate the severity of the disease. The report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission would form a startling document. He hoped another year was not going to pass without a proper, comprehensive Bill being introduced to deal with miners’ phthisis.

said he would vote for the £15,000 without any compunction. Miners’ phthisis was an occupational disease, plus tuberculosis, and so long as that terrible scourge was destroying the country it was the duty of the Government to help to pay compensation.

was glad that the House had last year granted £25,000 to sufferers from miners phthisis, and said it would give satisfaction if a Bill were introduced this year to deal with the disease. The members of the Labour party did not always represent the workmen in a proper manner. It was only talk and nothing else. It had appeared at meetings which he had held that the minere were willing to contribute to a fund. They received good wages, and could easily do so. He therefore supported the item. The mines had co-operated to build a fine and costly sanatorium, in which many Afrikanders were accommodated. He hoped that all hon. members would read the report of the Commission.

said that the Minister had himself admitted that the amount allowed, to the sufferers was a mere pittance. He (Mr. Haggar) had met some respectable men—men with wives and families—who had felt the insult of charity being offered to them ; and rather than go to the Board, had died without any compensation. (An HON. MEMBER: “Oh!”) It was all very well to say “Oh,” but it was perfectly true. The only way in which the miners could be mollified was to tell them that it was a charity measure —an emergency measure—otherwise they would have considered it an insult.

Question!

I don’t come here to tell lies. Proceeding, he said that in the kindest possible manner assistance had been rendered. He hoped that the Minister could see his way to make that amount more than the miserable dole, which only mocked their misery. As to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha); had said, at least the men sent by the Labour people to that House had forced the attention of that House to that question, and some time the hon. member might learn the story of the unfortunate widow—he had no doubt she had been a very offensive woman—(a laugh)—and by that had gained the day; and they (the Labour members) would also be offensive, until they gained the day.

said he thought that hon. members had not yet learnt that the only way to get rid of miners’ phthisis was to throw the onus upon the particular companies or concerns which were engaged in that occupation. Some thought that they on the cross-benches wanted some sort of insurance scheme, and a sum of money paid out when a man died. Nothing of the sort ; what they wanted was to prevent that disease. They contended that it was a preventable disease. He said most advisedly, and with a due sense of responsibility, that the mine-owners were not doing all they could to stop that disease, although it was said on their part that they were doing so. Some months ago the manager of the City Deep—the mine controlled by the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips)—had been fined because of no water having been laid on the mines; and he had said that he had only followed what had been the customary thing there. It had been found that the last manager had been discharged because he had suggested that water should be installed; and yet the hon. member stood up and said that they were doing everything to stop that disease! They were not. In another mine there was a 12-ft. drive, and even with a bright acetylene lamp miners could not see each other across it on account of the dust. Although he was not a practical medico, he averred that tuberculosis inevitably followed on silicosis —he was speaking from practical experience. Notwithstanding what might be said, the matter was a most serious one, and involved the health and lives of thousands of workers. He cited a case where a widow with two children dependent upon her had received the magnificent sum of £25 for the death of her husband; and a free pass to England. He went on to refer to a case—a widower—whose four children were in Australia. At four o’clock one afternoon he (the speaker) made out his papers, and the man died the next morning. He wrote to the Board asking it to communicate with him or a near friend of the deceased man. Neither heard from the Board for three weeks. This was not because the Board was unsympathetic, but because the Board had no cash. He wrote again, and the Board replied stating that they were not prepared to consider the matter until they were interviewed by the applicant’s dependents. Eventually the Board stated that it could not give any compensation, for the reason that they had no money. He knew of numbers of cases where £8 15s. had been granted for a period of six months. He thought it time that the House seriously considered the position on the Witwatersrand. They would never prevent miners’ phthisis until they made the mine owners pay.

said that he would not be doing his duty to himself or to the people of the country if he allowed the remarks of the last speaker to remain unchallenged. He claimed to know as much about the position as any hon. member on the cross-benches. He had come into social contact with these men, and he knew that hon. members on the cross-benches had not been stating the facts that night. With regard to this £15,000, these men—he meant the hon. members on the cross-benches—should welcome this contribution, whether it was paid by the Government or anybody else, and should hasten to bring this debate to a close so as to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. The last member who had spoken had made violent statements against the mine owners. He said that the mine owners were not doing anything to alleviate the conditions that existed. He would only say that he would give an adequate reply if he could use the language, but he would content himself to simply giving those statements the lie direct. An authority, whose word would be honoured not only here, but in Australia or anywhere else, had told him that if the men only took care they would not take the disease. Of course, they knew that some must catch it. He said that no mining industry in the world did as much for the men as the owners on the Witwatersrand. He would go further, and say that no mercantile industry in South Africa did more for its men. In conclusion, he said he could not remain in his seat after hearing the extraordinary statements that had been made by these extraordinary hon. members in that House.

said he would like to refer to the statement made that one of the managers of a mine with which he was connected was dismissed because he recommended shutting down the mine till water was laid on. He begged to state that that statement was absolutely in conflict with the facts of the case.

said that the hon. member for Bloemfontein had chided himself (the speaker) and his colleagues on making statements that were hollow hypocrisy, and being actuated by a desire to attack some friends of his. Any hon. members who had listened to his (the speaker’s) speech on the subject would have known that he dealt with the Act that was passed last year, and the failure of the Government to do what it should have done. He would not blame the hon. member for Bloemfontein for anything that might arise in that cloud of miasma of his. Providence had given it to him, and it was not for him (the speaker) to question the inscrutable ways of Providence. When they were forced to speak out plainly on matters of this kind they were told that they were actuated by personal and malignant animosity against those who controlled the industry. They had to speak out plainly when they believed that they were speaking in the public interest. He was going to begin now. The hon. member for eoville asked the House to believe that he and the other mine owners were doing their best to alleviate the distress that existed. He denied that. The hon. member for Yeoville had said that there were two classes to be coerced—the managers and the men. He said that that was a cowardly statement. He (the hon. member for Yeoville) knew very well that the first thing that was put before his managers was that the mines must be run at the greatest possible profit. The hon. member for Yeoville, under the specious pretence of humanity, tried to hide these things. The fact was that the mine owners were not doing all that could be done. He had even gone the length of chiding the hon. members for Bloemfontein and Cape Town, who had disagreed with the autocratic views which he (the hon. member for Yeoville) held. He pointed out that on the previous day that hon. member and others had not taken part in the debate that was carried on. He recollected that in 1907—or was it in 1906?—this humanitarian said that to bring the natives from Central Africa to the Rand was bringing them to their doom, and that it was inhuman.

He did not care twopence about this wishy-washy talk; it was really only wishy-washy talk. When this was a question between humanity and the acquisition of dollars, then they showed a singular disregard for humanity. The hon. member said last year that they must not do anything hastily, and again he had said that now, and he would go on saying that. They had believed last year that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill would have been placed upon the Statute-book last session ; but a question of expediency had prevented that. He would ask the Government to bring in this Bill at the earliest possible date. He wished to bring to the attention of the Minister a very hard case of a man suffering from miners’ phthisis, but who could not come under the regulation because he was unable to supply a certificate that he had been working five years underground. Personally, he had advocated in season and out of season that this question should be dealt with properly.

said they had jiust then listened to a violent denunciation which he did not think could be equalled in any Parliament in existence. (Hear, hear.) Nothing was more extraordinary than that they should put statements, that had never actually been made, into people’s mouths and then call them cowardly statements. What he said was that they had done everything in their power to reduce miners’ phthisis disease and this would be supported by the managers of the mines. A manager was not called upon to increase his profits by making more dust. The hon. member had referred to a statement he (Sir L. Phillips) made some years ago when he stated that the health of the Chinese was better than any previous workers on the Rand. And in those days they were replaced mostly from areas in the Cape Colony and the Transvaal. At that time very few natives were employed from tropical regions at all. It was comparatively in recent years that that source of supply had been developed. He hardly thought it necessary to say more, because he had shown that the hon. members gave a turn to statements he (Sir Lionel) had made which was entirely opposed to facts. (Hear, hear.) It was only on a par with the statements they were accustomed to hear from the cross-benches ; the most loose statements not founded on facts—any reason why this, that, or the other should be done, and he thought the House was gradually becoming accustomed to their lines of argument, which certainly did not carry them further in improving the prosperity of the country or in improving the working conditions of the people of the country. (Opposition cheers.) With regard to the other matter mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe, the whole question, in his opinion, was academic and absolutely unpractical, and on that account he did not think it worthy of the consideration of the House. He hoped the House would accept what he had said to-night as absolutely true, and that the charges made about him had no more foundation of fact than many of the things they heard from a similar quarter; and it was only one more evidence of the violence of their hatred of everybody connected with the mines. Why they did not know; but he supposed it was because it was part of their (the Labour members) stock in trade. (Cheers.)

withdrew his amendment.

said that some time ago they had a report of a Higher Education Committee. He would like to ask the Minister of Education if ho would introduce a Bill to deal with it.

I hope to bring it in this session.

Is it not ready yet?

Yes.

said ho understood that at the present time the Minister of Finance was paying carriage on cheques all the way to and from Pretoria, could he give any information about it?

The hon. member is quite misinformed on that point. I shall lay the correspondence that has passed between my Department and the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce on the table of the House.

said that was not good enough. They had had it in evidence before a committee that that was the case, that the Government was paying carriage on cheques that were sent from here to Pretoria for embossing, and then again to the different centres.

Certain charges were made by the Chamber of which the hon. member is a privileged member—they were very serious charges I pinned down those charges, and he is quite wrong in stating that it was stated in committee that it was customary to have these cheques sent to Pretoria for embossing.

It is being done now.

It is far better that I should lay on the table for the information of members of the House, the correspondence that has passed between the Department and the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce.

That is not good enough at all. As a matter of fact the Minister carefully evaded the question. What I say is this—there has been correspondence between the Minister and the Chamber of Commerce, but what I do say is, at the present moment the Government are paying carriage on cheques of a certain bank in Cape Town to Pretoria, and then to the various centres at which they are required.

It is not done. I told you so.

Will the Minister stand up and say whether it is true?

moved to reduce the amount by £310, being the item C, incidental expenses.

said in this vote there was an amount of £400 for salaries, allowances, pensions, and leave advances. He would like to draw attention to the report upon the question of pensions and leave paid simultaneously. He found on page 310 of the Auditor-General’s report on the Finance Account to March 31, 1911, he drew attention very strongly to the fact that pensions and leave pay were made simultaneously to certain officers. The total amount was £5,000. approximately, to the end of July, 1911. There was an important principle involved in this, and from the return which had been filed, they found that the sum of £3,400, which was surcharged by the Auditor-General, had been remitted by the Minister of Finance. He wanted to know upon what principle that had been done. The Auditor-General in his report said that these payments were distinctly opposed to the Acts of Parliament, and he gave a list of gentlemen who were surcharged.

Is the hon. member in order in discussing pensions on this vote?

retorted that he was not discussing pensions.

said he hoped they would have an answer from the Minister in reference to the matter of over-centralisation, raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said that he had no desire to avoid any reply to this question.

It looks very much like it.

said that, in regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis, he had not a copy of the Auditor-General’s report by him, but if the hon. member looked at the Votes and Proceedings of the House, he would see that that report had been referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the Select Committee would in due course deal with this very question of surcharges. His action had been referred to the committee, who would in due course report to the House, and they would see whether his action in remitting the surcharges was correct or not. There was no question of over-centralisation involved in the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. There was no custom —

It is not a question of custom ; it is a question of fact.

I can only repeat what I said before, that I will lay the correspondence on the table of the House, and hon. members may then judge whether I am right, or the hon. member for Cape Town Central is right.

said he could not accept the statement of the Minister of Finance. He had raised this question before, and he had been told to wait. He had waited, but he had not got the information, and he now meant to insist upon getting it.

said that the Minister had deliberately tried to evade the question he put to him. The facts of the case were these: To-day the Minister had an agreement with a bank in Cape Town, under which he took their cheque forms, paid the carriage on those cheque forms to Pretoria, and then sent those cheque forms to any destination, throughout the country where they were required, and he paid the carriage on them. There was a stamping machine in Cape Town within 200 yards of the bank, where the forms could be stamped at a cheaper rate than at Pretoria. It was a piece of gross extravagance on the part of the Treasury to pay the carriage on the cheques to Pretoria and back again. How long was this to continue?

I will proceed to put the vote.

It is no answer for the Minister to say that he will put the papers on the table.

Surely the Leader of the House will request the Minister to give an answer to an ordinary question. What is the use of going into committee if the Minister will not courteously answer questions. If he does not do so, he will not facilitate the business.

said he did not think the hon. member had any right to charge him with being discourteous. He would put the correspondence on the table.

That is no answer.

Perhaps the best plan to adopt is to read the letter addressed to the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce a few days ago.

The best way would be to give a direct answer.

read a copy of a letter dated March 14 directed to the Secretary of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. The letter stated that the communication from the Chamber, of March 12, entirely ignored the three specific inquiries made on February 1, which were:(1) Would the Chamber give an indication of the evidence upon which was founded the statement that the Government had decided to transfer all the work of embossing cheques and drafts from Cape Town to Pretoria. The Minister had informed the Chamber that he had no knowledge of this decision and no such decision had been, or was proposed to be, taken by the Government. Under the circumstances the Chamber should either furnish the evidence on which the assertion was made or withdraw it altogether. (2) Would the Chamber give specific information respecting its assertion that the work was gradually being drafted from Cape Town? The Minister of Finance had made it clear that this assertion was not in accordance with facts. Embossing facilities were still provided in Cape Town as were available at the time of Union. (3) Would the Chamber substantiate its statement that up to the present the change had been a source of much inconvenience to the general and commercial public of Cape Town? The Minister (the letter proceeded) could not conceive that a body such as the Chamber would have made such an assertion without foundation, and it was due to him to give the evidence on which the Chamber had come to its conclusion. So far as he had been able to discover no complaints on this subject had been made to the Treasury. There had been no curtailment of stamping facilities. That letter, said the Minister, completely answered the question.

Certainly not—not a bit. I have no doubt the word “decided” was used in the secretary’s letter, and I quite believe that the Government has come to no fixed decision. That is just characteristic of the Minister through and through; he takes a single word and hangs on to it. Continuing, the hon. member said the Government were offering facilities to banks in this city to send their cheques to Pretoria to be stamped and Government paid carriage onthem both to Pretoria from Cape Town and from Pretoria to their destination. But if the cheques were stamped in Cape Town the Minister refused to pay the carriage on them to their destination. Was not that an encouragement to the banks to send their cheques to Pretoria to be stamped? FaciHties were given, which facilities he understood had been refused to Cape Town. Were they not justified in drawing the inference that very gradually the embossing would be done more and more at Pretoria? Then as regards the inconvenience; if one got them stamped in Cape Town one could send them in the morning and get them back in the afternoon, or certainly on the following day ; but if they had to send them to Pretoria, it would certainly take a week at least.

said that he would relate what his experience was in regard to that matter. His firm had a cheque book made in Cape Town; he had gone to Cape Town in the morning to the Receiver of Revenue to get them embossed, and he got them back that afternoon, and could catch the train back to Caledon. As far as he was concerned he had no grievance against the Treasury. (Laughter.)

That’s quite right, but in the course of some time the hon. member will find he will have to send them up to Pretoria.

There is a distinct statement from me that the Government does not intend to have these things done at Pretoria.

said that there was great inconvenience felt in Natal because cheques had to be sent from Durban and Pietermaritzburg to Pretoria to be stamped. He had had some correspondence with Pretoria on the subject, but could not get satisfaction, and had been told that the embossing would cease in Natal, and must take place at Pretoria. He was very pleased to hear the discussion brought up, and he hoped that the Minister would take that question into consideration, and return to the original position, which was better. (Hear, hear.)

said that the Minister had not answered the question put to him. As to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), that question did not arise with him. If he had sent the cheques in from Caledon, he would have found the difference. If he had sent them to Pretoria, the Government would have paid the railway charges, but if he had sent them in from Caledon to Cape Town, the hon. member would have had to pay. That was what the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had dealt with. He hoped he had made it clear now. (Laughter.)

said that they were all very pleased at the very lucid and satisfactory explanation of the Minister of Finance. (Laughter and ironic Ministerial cheers.) It was quite clean, however, from what had passed, that the intention of the Government had been quite different from what the present intention seemed to be—at any rate, from what they could gather from the words of the Minister of Finance.

also thanked the Minister for his lucid reply to the question he had asked. (Laughter.) He was still waiting for a reply. (Laughter.) The sooner the system of paying out without going to Parliament was dropped the better for the country and for clean administration. This was in distinct opposition to the laws of the country. He moved the reduction of the vote by the whole amount. (Laughter.) He was not satisfied with the explanation of the Minister; it was so lucid, he could not see it. He moved the reduction of the vote by £400.

asked for an explanation.

asked if that was the proper time to go into this matter when it had been reported upon by the Auditor-General. He could not yield to the appeal and make an ex parte statement. (Hear, hear.)

The amendments moved by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Nathan were negatived.

High Commissioner in London, £2,472.

Said that there was a decrease of £4,000 odd in the Department, but there was a large increase in the way of pensions. He thought that the Minister of Finance might give an explanation.

Isn’t the Minister going to answer?

said he thought it extraordinary these debates should take place on these votes. He was not prepared for these questions, for he had not the papers. Hon. members could raise the questions at a later stage.

asked when the House was to be supplied with the Estimates?

said as soon as he received the Estimates these would be laid on the table.

I suppose we will get them before we vote?

That happened last time.

It must happen again before we pay. He was opposed to this house allowance; he was opposed to it on account of the heavy salaries which were being paid to the Administrators. He hoped that they deserved their salaries, but this amount was considerably in excess of what was voted them. The question was, were they going to give the Administrators a house allowance or not? (Cries of “Yes.”) They never stopped to consider the importance of the principle. They were endeavouring to reduce the enormous expenses of the country, and it was in the interests of this reduction that he moved that the item of £300 be deleted.

desired information regarding an amount of £5,432, subsidy to the Cape of Good Hope.

stated that this represented an advance to the Oudtshoorn industrial schools. He would point out that the Cape Parliament passed an Act for the establishment of labour colonies and industrial schools. Proceeding, the Minister said that perhaps he could persuade the hon. member for Von Brandis to withdraw his serious amendment by telling him that the amount of the house allowances of the Administrators of the Free State and Transvaal were each, he thought, £200 or £240 a year.

moved to reduce the amount by £300, being the item A, salaries and allowances of Administrators and Provincial auditors.

said that these people had had most of their allowance. The matter would come before the House with the next year’s Estimates, and he would then support the hon. member if he moved to strike out the whole of the allowances.

hoped that before they got to the Estimates the Government would seriously consider the real necessity for this house allowance. It seemed quite unnecessary.

withdrew the amendment.

asked if the amount had been increased?

replied that it had not.

said he would be glad if the Minister would give them some information regarding the £24,000 (miscellaneous expenses) stated as due to an under-estimate of the amount required to recoup loan funds for loss on repatriation account. They had been told that this money was as good as cash. That, however, appeared to have not been so, for now they were asked to write off apparently a sum of £24,000 more, and he supposed, therefore, that the amount which had been referred to as being as good as cash was reduced by that amount. He would be glad if the Minister would tell them how his estimate of this £800,000 was going to come out.

said he would deal with the matter of telephones when they came to that vote. In regard to the repatriation account, he might say that the hon. member and his friends took as the position in the Transvaal years ago—and he thought very rightly—that they should only recover, the money from those people who were in, a position to pay it, and that the policy of the Government should not be to force people who were struggling to make a living to pay if they had no means of doing so. During the course of the year 1910-1911 certain moneys which they had thought were recoverable turned out to be irrecoverable. Some people had died, some had become bankrupt, and it was found impossible to get anything in several cases, and therefore they took the proper course, as he thought, and came to Parliament to sanction the writing off cf these amounts. He could not at the present moment inform the hon. member how much of the £800,000 would be irrecoverable. He might mention that the figure of £24,000 referred to the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and Natal.

said he would like to suggest to the Minister that a return in relation to this matter should be laid on the table of the House each year.

asked for an explanation of this vote.

It is a legacy taken over from the late Cape Government.

Was it not a fact that Government had obtained great credit in the Press for paving this money, and was it not a fact that, instead of the Imperial Government paying Customs dues from day to day, it was arranged that it should pay the dues in a lump sum, and that when the accounts came to be adjusted, it was discovered that the Imperial Government had paid £40,000 too much?

If the Press give us credit that we don’t deserve, I can’t help it. (Laughter.)

This is a refund?

No, a grant to the Imperial Government.

It is no present whatever to the Imperial Government, but a refund.

On Vote 39,. Buildings, Bridges, and Roads, £5,598,

asked for some information with regard to item (a), £4,848.

replied that it was for huts for natives on the New Brighton location.

asked if these natives paid rent?

Yes.

asked if it would be carried out on business lines?

replied in the affirmative.

hoped that progress would now be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

said he wanted the Bill passed by the other place by the following night.

suggested that progress should be reported.

On Telegraphs and Telephones, £175,000,

said the money was voted by the Transvaal Parliament before Union, and the work was in hand at that time.

We’ll forgive you! (Laughter.)

said the fact was that the £175,000 had been diverted from the original object and put to this purpose in the Transvaal.

Was this sanctioned by the last Transvaal Government or Parliament?

Parliament.

Oh!

Loan, Vote D, Agriculture, £1,500,

asked the Minister whether it was the policy of the Government to subsidise factories, such as the condensed milk factory at Parijs, for which this amount of £1,500 was to be voted.

said this was not a grant, but a loan. The business was formerly a jam factory. He went there accompanied by the dairy expert, who advised him there was a possibility of starting a condensed milk factory there. He knew as much about condensed milk as hon. gentlemen opposite. (Laughter.) The Government’s action was warranted, the security safe, and the interest 5 per cent., the amount to be repaid in ten years. He went on to say that within two years they would be exporting butter from the country.

said they were asked not to say anything about it because the money was spent, then they found another £1,500, for the same factory, he believed. The Government were custodians of the country’s finance, and it was their duty to see that the money was properly expended. He was glad to see, however, that the Minister of Commerce was being kept busy. (Laughter.)

said this was a factory originally started in the Orange Free State under the bonus system, and the Government had about £20,000 invested in the plant. The point was whether they should give support to the condensed milk factory, seeing that the jam factory had been a failure.

asked, if the condensed milk factory failed, what other industry would be started? It was an extraordinary thing that the Government should support its past failures by giving further sums of money to them.

asked what business the Government had to go in for the business at all? It was not their business. They invariably lost. And if they started dairies in the Free State, why did not they do so in the Cape?

said he was sorry to have roused the ire of the hon. member for Bloemfontein. He did not object to supporting industries, but would like the basis laid down on which they should support them.

said he could not say what they would do if this factory was a failure. He did not think it would be a failure. He had satisfied himself there were no other milk factories in the Union. He was satisfied that was an industry worth encouraging, and he made the loan of £4,000 with very ample security.

said that £20,000 had been put into this concern already, the concern having proved a failure, and now they were asked to chuck in another £4,000. He could not for the life of him see why this concern should be bolstered up any more than any other industry. He objected to the system of distinction between one industry and another, which was being adopted.

said Parliament should lay down what its policy was to be in the matter of helping industries. Was Government going to hand money to everybody?

asked why the Minister had not referred the borrowers to the Land Bank?

It had no money.

said it was an absolutely new industry.

No, no, we had it in Port Elizabeth, and it did not succeed.

went on to say that the Ministry was advancing large sums to dairies. For the loan of £5,000 there was security of £12,000.

wished to know on what authority the Government had spent the money?

asked if there was now £20,000, plus £4,000, owing to the Government?

No.

asked when it had been decided to make that further loan?

said he had not explained to the committee why he had not got the authority of Parliament to make the advance. It had been thought that a surplus of £16,000 was available, but that was found to be incorrect. Hence the authority was required.

replied that he intended to give full particulars in a few days’ time. There was a question on the paper dealing with the matter.

The Estimates were thereupon reported without amendment and adopted.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the Additional Appropriation (1910-12) Bill, in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as adopted by the House.

brought up the report of the committee appointed to draft the Bill.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading at the next sitting of the House.