from Henri Dykman, late translator of the Legislative Assembly, Transvaal.

from residents of Jagersfontein, praying that the new prison buildings be proceeded with upon the site granted to the Government for the purpose.

from members of the Seventh Day Adventist. Church, praying that the House will not enact a law enforcing compulsory military training upon those whose religious convictions make them non-combatants.

from H. Frier, convict guard.

from inhabitants of Lichtenburg, praying that Government water drills may be hired out to farmers at the previous tariff of £2 per diem (four petitions).

introduced by the Minister of Railways and Harbours and Mr. Louw, subscribed to the oath and took his seat.

as chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill, reporting that the preamble had not been proved.

read the report, which was to the effect that the committee, after taking evidence and hearing parties both for and against the Bill, examined the allegations in the preamble of the Bill, but the same had not been proved to their satisfaction. (Ministerial cheers.)

Report of a Commission to inquire into the prevalence of miners’ phthisis and pulmonary tuberculosis on mines within the Union of South Africa, 1912; return of cases dealt with by the Miners’ Phthisis Board; preliminary report by the Actuary on questions connected with miners’ phthisis.

Papers relating to proposed railway out-span, Native Reserve No. 21, Zululand.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Papers Nos. 46 to 55 relating to grants, leases, and sales of land.

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

Proclamation No. 18 of 1912 amending the boundaries of Butterworth, Idutywa, and the Enthlambe Ward, Butterworth; Proclamation No. 22 of 1912, extending the powers of the Municipality of Umtata.

Return of land purchased by the Government out of the £120,000 allocated under vote “F” of the Loans Appropriation (1910-1912) Act, 1910.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that pattern-maker McNiel, and fitter Murphy, who were retrenched without gratuity in 1906, gave evidence which led to the detection of fraud, perpetrated on the railway and to the dismissal of an inspector in the Maintenance Department on the Western system and of the inspector’s son; (2) whether McNiel had proved an excellent and Murphy a fair workman; (5) whether since 1906 pattern-makers and fitters without previous service have been taken into the employment of the railway service, while employment has been refused to McNiel and Murphy; and (4) whether, in view of their previous service and all the circumstances of this case, the Minister will see that they are re-employed on the first possible opportunity?

replied that the answer to (1) was in the negative; in regard to (2) McNiel had proved a capable and Murphy a fair workman; to (3) the reply was in the affirmative; and to (4) their re-employment would depend upon circumstances.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he will state how much buchu was exported during each of the last five years and what the price was per lb. compared with the price today; and (2) whether the Government will consider the advisability of assisting owners of ground on which buchu grows, either by forbidding the sale of buchu without a licence or in some other way?

(1) The exports of but during the last five years were as follows: 1907: 291,334 lb.; value, £9,201; price per lb., 7½d. 1908: 243 472 lb.; value, £7,284; price per lb., 7d 1909: 260,126 lb.; value, £9,666; price per lb., 9d. 1910: 273,325 lb.; value, £24,428; price per lb., 1s. 9d. 1911: 212,082 lb.; value, £29,647; price per lb., 2s. 9d. (2) Under the powers afforded by the Forests Acts and Regulations, the Forest Department recently introduced a system of transit passes for the conveyance of buchu, whereby persons found conveying buchu without a transit pass, showing where it had come from, are liable to have the buchu seized by a forest or police officer, until it can be proved that it had not been stolen. (Vide Government Notice No. 840 of 1910, which deals with the subject.) The Government can only give passes for buchu obtained from Crown lands, and farmers and others on whose land buchu is grown may greatly assist the Government in its efforts to prevent theft of buchu by providing persons authorised by them to carry buchu with passes, and by asking any persons in possession of buchu whom they may have reason to suspect have not come by it honestly for their passes.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he will supply the following particulars as to the amount of railway traffic in connection with the Butterworth railway station during the year ended December 31, 1911, viz.: (a) (i) The tonnage of goods inwards received; (ii) the amount received for the carriage of the same; (iii) the amount received for passenger traffic; (iv) the tonnage of wool and other agricultural and pastoral produce forwarded by rail; (v) the amount received for carriage of the same; (b) particulars under the foregoing heads with regard to the railway traffic at Ndabakazi station and Toleni bridge and Eagle siding; and (2) what proportion of (a) the working expenses and (b) the interest on cost of construction has been paid by the Amabele-Butterworth line during the said 12 months, and whether this proportion includes the share of the said traffic between East London and Amabele?

said that notwithstanding the fact that it was going to cost some money the was having a full return prepared.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether there is a maximum rate of pay for the various classes of daily-paid employees in the service of the railways at Uitenhage, and if so, what is the rate and when was it fixed; and (2) whether any workmen or other daily-paid employees appointed at Uitenhage after the date on which the maximum rate of pay was fixed receive more than the maximum, and if so, why?

(1) Maxima rates of pay for various classes of workshop staff not yet definitely decided upon; matter was dealt with by Staff Committee, report of which is now being considered. At Mechanical Engineers’ Conference in October, 1910, maxima rates of pay for various grades were recommended and maxima suggested therein were provisionally adopted, pending fixing of uniform rates as result of Staff Committee’s inquiry. Schedule showing provisional maxima rates applicable at Uitenhage is appended. These rates are practically the same as those in force in Cape prior to Union, with exception of few minor alterations. (2) Yes; maxima rates exceeded in two cases by 1d. per hour, for reason (1) that two men concerned were good workmen and were doing same work as other men who were getting 1d. per hour more before maxima were fixed, and (2) that one of the men, though an equally competent workman, was getting less than other men of shorter service. One of these men is graded as second grade and the other as third grade metal machinist, so that while earning more than men m the second and third grades, respectively, they are well within maximum fixed for top grade of their class.

Maximum rates of pay applicable to artisans in the Uitenhage workshops:

Chargemen of all trades 2s. in advance of tradesmen rates.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the almost general complaint that when staffs are being retrenched only, or practically only, Dutch Afrikanders are retrenched, and that this, so it is alleged, specially refers to the Agricultural Department; and, if so, whether he is prepared to lay the facts before the House?

replied: My attention has been drawn to these complaints, but they are always of a general character, and mention is never made of particular eases. There is not the least ground for these allegations. The retrenchment of officials is naturally a most unpleasant task, but in the carrying out of this work the Government has always followed definite principles. As far as the Agricultural Department is concerned, the only Dutch-speaking officials whose services were dispensed with were temporary men, with the exception of two, who were retired at their own request.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) In which of the 29 districts of the Transkeian Territories East Coast Fever has appeared; (2) how many cattle have died of that fever, in each of the said districts; (5) in which districts have dipping tanks been built since the last session of Parliament, and how many of such tanks are there in each of such districts?

replied: (1) and (2) Outbreaks of East Coast Fever have occurred in the following districts of the Transkeian Territories, the approximate mortality being given after each district, viz.: Umzimkulu, 25,000; Elliotdale, 56,650; Mqanduli (excepting village commonage), 50,000; Willowvale, 10,000; Bizana, 16,000; Ngqeleni, 5,000; Libode, several hundred; Port St. John’s, 2,505; Umtata, 2,000; Tsolo, 600; Idutywa, 750; Engcobo, 400; Kentani, 25; Qumbu, 1; Mount Ayliff, 2; Butterworth Commonage, 1; approximate total deaths, 146,752. (5) Since last session of Parliament the following dipping tanks have been erected, viz.: Kentani, 6; Butterworth, 5; Idutywa, 9; Umtata, 9; Ngqeleni, 9; Port St. John’s, 2 (built by General Council). The following private cattle dipping tanks were erected under Act 20 of 1911 up to March 20, 1912: Elliot, 1; Lusikisiki, 1; Maclear, 5; Matatiele, 2; Mount Currie, 5; Port St. John’s, 2; Umtata, 5; Umzimkulu, 15. The above list does not include tanks built by private enterprise without assistance from the Government.

asked the Minister of Justice whether, when magistrates are being transferred in future, he will see to it that men are appointed to country magistracies who are able to try cases and take down evidence in both languages?

replied: I recognise the necessity of magistrates in the country districts of this Province knowing and being able to officiate in both the official languages, and it is the policy of the Government to see that in the appointment of such magistracies in this requirement is complied with. The honourable member must, however, remember that at the present moment many magistrates of the Union are not able to fulfil this requirement, and that consequently it is not possible in all cases to give practical effect to what is recognised to be a real necessity.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what was the cost of construction of the Howick branch railway, and the amount of receipts and working expenses of the same for 1911?

replied: (1) Total cost of Howick branch to 31st January, 1912, £8,341 1s. 9d.; (2) receipts from date of opening of line for traffic, namely, 7th October, 1911, to 31st December, 1911, £137; (3) working expenses for same period, £370.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours if he intends to appoint the Railway Complaint Board; and, if so, when?

replied: This question is engaging attention in connection with the Railways and Harbours Service Bill now under consideration by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. Probably before the session is much further advanced the hon. gentleman may get more light on the subject.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether it is a fact that no further funds are available to relieve miners suffering from phthisis, in lieu of compensation; that over 200 cases remain to be dealt with, and that further applications for relief are being made at the rate of four per day; and, if so, (2) (a) whether this is due to a delay on the part of the mine owners in paying over the further £15,000 contribution decided upon by the Government; and (b) what steps he proposes to take to enforce the immediate payment of such contribution, and to provide other relief to alleviate the prevailing distress?

replied: (1) The sum of £50,000 contributed equally by the Government and the mining industry has been exhausted, but arrangements were made with the mining industry for making available such further sum as was necessary for dealing with current cases until a further appropriation could be made by Parliament and a further legal levy be made on the mine owners under the Miners’ Phthisis Allowances Act. (2) (a) The answer is in the negative. (b) Parliament having last week approved of a further appropriation of £15,000, a levy will be now made on the mine owners in terms of section 2 of the Act.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that an official at the Cape Town Docks has constructed the model of a truck so designed that coal and mealies may be effectively, speedily, and economically unloaded; and (2) whether he is prepared to inspect this model with a view to considering the advisability of having trucks built according to the said design?

replied: (1) Yes; a model of a truck specially designed for the unloading of coal or mealies has been constructed by certain officers at the Docks. (2) No; but the question as to whether or not the truck, as designed, would be suitable for the Administration’s requirements is under consideration by the railway officers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he has received a resolution adopted by the inhabitants of Haenertsburg to the effect that in districts infected with East Coast fever no permits for moving cattle across private farms without the consent of the owner should be allowed; and (2) whether he is prepared to give effect to that resolution, if not generally, then at least as far as the ward Haenertsburg, Zoutpansberg, is concerned?

replied: (1) The resolution referred to has been received. (2) I am not prepared to give effect to the resolution for the following reasons: The precaution asked for was adopted in some districts in the Transvaal in the earlier days of the East Coast fever invasion, but proved unsatisfactory, on account of its liability to be abused by selfish or indifferent owners, who, by objecting to movements of stock which were perfectly safe, along the portion of road running through their farms, were able to paralyse the traffic of a whole district. It is thought that the interests of the owners are sufficiently safeguarded by the scrutiny to which applications for permits are at present subjected by the authorities responsible for their issue, and this is proved by the manner in which the general public accept the decision of the authorities.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) Whether it is a fact that the subsistence allowance for the mail porters in the western travelling post office working between Gape Town and Laingsburg has recently been reduced from 2d. an hour or 3s. 8d. per diem to 1d. an hour or 1s. l0d. per diem; (2) whether the six mail porters have asked to be withdrawn from duty on the ground that it was impossible for them to subsist on this allowance, and whether their request was refused; and (3) whether the Government is prepared to take into consideration the advisability of restoring the previous subsistence allowance of 2d. an hour?

replied: The reply to questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, and that to question 5 in the negative.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether it is a fact that the duties of gaolers and their subordinate officers begin each day at 5.30 a.m. and end at 11 p.m., if not, what are their respective hours of duty, and are they during these hours allowed any time off for meals and rest, if so, what these hours are; (2) whether it is a fact that a gaoler has to keep 48 books; and (3) how many prisoners sentenced from three months and upwards, have, during the year 1911, been transferred from one gaol to another, and at what cost?

replied: (1) It is not a fact that the duties of gaolers and their subordinate officers begin each day at 5.30 a.m. and end at 11 at night in any of the Provinces. The ordinary gaol hours follow the activities of the prisoners, and in the Cape Province prisoners are unlocked in summer at 5.30 a.m. and in winter at 6.30 a.m., and the final lock-up in summer is at 6.30 p.m. and in winter 5.45 p.m. The ordinary inside staff work in the Cape Province is in summer from six in the morning to six-thirty in the evening, and in the winter from seven to a quarter to six in the evening, with from one-half to three-quarters of an hour off for breakfast and one hour off for lunch. Outside warders with the spans guard these from six-thirty to six in the evening in summer, and from seven-thirty to five in the evening in winter. They have to take their meals while guarding the convicts. The gaoler has the same hours off as the inside staff. (2) It is not a fact that any gaoler has to keep 48 books; in the large prisons the number is about 12. (3) The statistics asked for as to numbers would involve calling for a return from all prisons and goals within the Union. As to cost, however, about £3,800 less was spent on the transport of prisoners and warders in 1911 than was spent in 1910.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours (1) Whether he is aware that owners over whose grounds railways which are not fenced in suffer great inconvenience and direct and indirect losses; (2) that applicants have been refused assistance to enclose the line on the ground that no more funds are available; and (3) whether he will, without delay, take steps to render owners the necessary assistance to enclose the railway lines on their properties?

said he was sorry to say that that happened occasionally. As the hon. member was aware, certain grants could be made, but certain applications had to be refused, owing to a lack of funds. As the hon. member was well aware, the Railway Department did not spend money without authority, and therefore he proposed to ask Parliament for some money this session.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the letter published in the “Cape Times” of the 19th instant, signed by Mr. W. J. Palmer, late Director of Agriculture in the Orange Free State; and (2) whether the statements contained in that letter with reference to the circumstances connected with his retirement are correct; and, if not, in what respect are they incorrect?

replied: (1) My attention has been drawn to Mr. Palmer’s letter. (2) A considerable portion of Mr. Palmer’s letter is taken up with statements comparing the work performed by the Orange Free State Agriculture formed by the Orange Free State Agricultural Department with that performed by the Agricultural Departments of the other colonies prior to Union, matters upon which differences of opinion no doubt exist. Mr. Palmer likewise ventilates his views on other questions, which are also matters of opinion and not of fact. I am not prepared to take up the time of the House in discussing these matters. Before deciding to dispense with Mr. Palmer’s services, I had several interviews with him regarding his position in the Union Department. I explained to him that although I was anxious to retain his services, it would only be possible to offer him a position subordinate to the officers who had already been appointed as Acting Secretary and Acting Under Secretary of Agriculture. Such a position, Mr. Palmer told me, he was not prepared to accept, and the only alternative, therefore, was to retrench him. Mr. Palmer’s letter suggests that he was summarily dismissed. This is not correct. After his retirement had been decided upon, two proposals were made to him: (a) That he should be paid in advance three months salary, in addition to the gratuity of £1,000 to which he was entitled under the Orange Free State Regulations; (b) that he should proceed on six months’ leave, three months on full and three months on half pay, and thereafter receive the gratuity of £1,000. Mr. Palmer chose the latter alternative. The Government also took over the house which Mr. Palmer had built with money advanced by the Government.

asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries: (1) Whether bulk butter, amounting to about 2,000 cases, was imported from Australia and landed “J.B.” railed from Durban during the months from June to September, 1911, to the Government Cold Storage, Maritzburg; (2) whether any of the butter was railed under the South African produce rate; and (3) where was it consigned to from such cold storage?

replied: (1) Between April 9 and June 16, 1911, 2,201 cases of Australian butter were conveyed from Durban harbour to Government cold storage, Pietermaritzburg, at imported rate. (2) This butter, when re-consigned, was charged at imported rate, except certain consignments amounting in all to 482 boxes, which were charged at South African produce rate when subsequently conveyed from Pietermaritzburg to Natal Creamery at Mooi River, but undercharge representing difference between imported and South African produce rate subsequently collected. Butter was not specifically declared as South African produce when consigned. (3) Butter was forwarded to Natal Creamery, Mooi River, from cold storage at Pietermaritzburg. When butter was distributed from Mooi River Creamery charges at South African produce rate were raised in respect of certain consignments, but undercharges at imported rate have since been collected. In this case also butter was not specifically declared “South African.”

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) How many (a) free Indians and (b) indentured Indians are employed in his Department in Natal; (2) how many of the latter class have renewed their indentures with the Government since 1st January, 1911; and (3) how many Indians have entered into new indentures with the Government since 1st January, 1911?

replied: (1) (a) 1,343, (b) 2,398; (2) 591; and (3) 294.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether the report that Government proposes to close the Natal Observatory at Durban is correct; and, if so, (2) what arrangements are intended to be substituted for obtaining the meteorological and other scientific data recorded there; and (3) whether such arrangements will include provision for giving the correct time daily to the shipping, port, town, and surrounding country by visible or audible signal?

replied: It is the intention of the Government to discontinue the taking of astronomical observations at the observatory in question, as work of that nature can be more efficiently conducted at the observatory in Johannesburg, which is better equipped for the purpose. There will be no interference with the recording of meteorological data or with the supply of a daily time signal to the port.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) With reference to the expedition to northern Africa to purchase ostriches, on what date, and where was the first meeting of interested persons held to consider the advisability of sending such an expedition; (2) (a) who were present at the meeting; (b) what sums were expended in connection therewith; (c) who paid the expenses of those present; (d) to whom were they paid individually; and (e) how much was paid to each person; (3) (a) on what date did the expedition start, and (b) who were the persons comprising the party; (4) on what date, and where, was the second meeting of interested persons held, and to supply the same particulars in regard to this meeting as are specified in paragraphs 2 (a) to (e) thereof; (5) are the above outlays included in the £11,000 voted for the purpose and included in the Additional Appropriation (1910-12) Bill; (6) whether he will lay on the table of the House copies of all correspondence, cables, minutes of meetings, reports, memoranda, and all papers in connection with the matter; and (7) whether he is aware that ostriches from Barbary, viz., one cock and four hens, are advertised to be sold by public auction at Port Elizabeth on the 27th inst.?

replied: (1) The first meeting was held at Middelburg, Cape, on 12th July, 1911. (2) (a) In addition to the Under-Secretary for Agriculture and Mr. R. W. Thornton, the Principal of the Grootfontein School of Agriculture, the following gentlemen were present: O. A. Oosthuisen (Willowmore), C. E. G. Evans (Melrose), E. J. Collett (Dunblane), Ockert Fourie (Oudtshoorn), John H. le Roux (Oudtshoorn), J. S. de Wet (Ashton), G. White (Grahamstown), M. Gadd (Tafelberg), A. E. Murray (Graaff Reinet), J. C. Gilfillan (Transvaal), (b) (c) (d) and (e) No expense was incurred by the Government in connection with this meeting. (3) (a) The expedition left on the 2nd August, 1911. (b) The persons comprising the party are: R. W. Thornton, J. M. P. Bowker, F. C. Smith. (4) (a) The second meeting was held at Pretoria on 6th December, 1911, when the following gentlemen were present: Senator Southey, G. White, M. Gadd, J. S. de Wet, O. A. Oosthuisen, J. Schoeman, M.L.A. Messrs. Oscar Evans, J. H. le Roux, and A. E. Murray had also been invited to attend, but were unavoidably absent, (b) (c) (d) and (e) No expense was incurred by the Government in connection with this meeting. (5) No expense was incurred. (6) The papers will be laid on the table. (7) The birds referred to were imported a few years ago and were recently offered to this Department. The offer was refused, as the birds are not of the type which the Government is importing.

asked the Minister of Justice whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the position of Court Messengers and placing them on a salaried basis?

replied: It was the intention of the Government to have legislated on the subject of the position of Messengers of Court during the present session, and a Bill has been drafted, interalia, having this object in view. With the slow progress of the business of the House, however—(hear, hear)—I have reluctantly had to abandon hope of being able to bring this forward this session.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been directed to a letter of Mr. I. G. L. Strauss, published in “Ons Land,” of the 12th instant, on the subject of Scab Act administration, and whether he would favourably consider the offer made in that letter?

hoped that the hon. member would allow that matter to stand over.

agreed.

asked the Minister of Education whether he could make any statement as to the result of the recent discussions between the Union and Provincial Authorities in regard to education, and in particular: (1) Whether any arrangement had been effected as to the adoption of a common scale of teachers’ salaries and a joint scheme for teachers’ pensions, and whether it was proposed to deal with the question of the salaries, status, and pensions of teachers in a Union Act or to leave the Provinces to legislate if necessary; (2) (a) whether the Provinces were to be placed on an equality in regard to school buildings, and if this system of school loans was to continue in the Cape or be extended to other Provinces; and (b) whether it was proposed that the Provinces in which it was applied should exercise their borrowing power independent of the Union Treasury; and (3) whether the spheres of the Union and the Provinces in regard to education had been defined; and if so, how?

replied: (1) No arrangement has been effected as to the adoption of a common scale of teachers’ salaries and a joint scheme for teachers’ pensions. The question of salaries, status, and pensions of teachers, and the manner of dealing therewith are still under consideration. (2) (a) The Government has decided to adopt in principle the recommendations of the Financial Relations Commission, whereby all the Provinces shall obtain loans for school buildings from the Treasury. The details of the scheme will be set forth in a Bill dealing with the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces; (b) the answer is in the negative. (3) It has been decided: (a) That, so far as the Union Education Department is concerned, higher education shall include education beyond the standard of matriculation, or a standard considered by the Minister to be equivalent thereto, which is carried on in an institution established under a special statute, and any extension or continuation courses carried on in connection with such an institution which the Minister may approve; (b) that the training of teachers shall be conducted on the following basis: (1) The administration of institutions for the training of teachers qualifying for the third and second class teachers’ examinations, now conducted, or as proposed to be conducted, in terms of recommendation No. 9 of the Directors’ Conference, held at Bloemfontein on the 30th November and 1st December, 1911, and the conduct of the examinations and inspection of such candidates, shall remain under the administration of the Provinces. (2) The institutions referred to in the preceding paragraph do not include or refer to students of University Colleges preparing for the Second Class Teachers’ Examination, which students shall in every respect be under the control and administration of the Union Department of Education, save in so far as their inspection and examination are concerned, which shall continue to be conducted by the Provincial authorities. (3) All matters concerned with the training and examination of teachers for certificates higher than the Second Class Teachers’ Certificate above referred to shall be under the control and administration of the Union Department. (4) The examination shall be conducted and Union certificates shall be issued by the Union Department in place of the certificates now known as Special Second Class Teachers’ or Higher Second Class Teachers’ or First Class Teachers’ Certificates, hitherto issued or issuable by the Provinces. (5) The Provincial Departments shall, where desirable and where possible, approve of assistance being given at University Colleges in special subjects, such as woodwork, singing, needlework, drawing, and hygiene, by instructors who may be employed by those departments. (6) The Provincial Departments shall provide reasonable facilities in the primary and secondary schools for the practical work of Normal students attending the University Colleges. (7) No candidates shall be admitted to the Higher Second Class Teachers’ or other examination referred to in paragraphs (3) or (4) above who have not passed the B.A. or another excellent examination. (8) The arrangement above set forth shall come into operation on the 1st July, 1912. In regard to technical education, the following resolution was adopted by the recent Conference of the Minister of Education with the Administrators and their Executive Committees: “This Conference approves of the nomination by the Minister of Education of a National Advisory Board, for the purpose of advising the said Minister, or any other Minister of the Union, or any of the Administrators of the Provinces, on matters relating to technical, industrial, and commercial education, and to instruction in domestic, science or home industries, it being understood: (1) That the Board shall not be concerned with any matters relating to the work carried on as part of the curriculum of any primary or secondary school, as distinguished from special institutions for the special branches of education above referred to. (2) That the functions of the Board shall be purely consultative and advisory.”

moved:

“That the petition from the Mayor and Town Clerk, representing the Town Council of Port Elizabeth, praying for the amendment of the General Dealers’ and other Licences Amendment Act, 19C6 (Cape), presented to the House on the 4th inst., be referred to the Government for consideration.” The hon. member said that it was understood from the remarks of the Minister of Finance that that question of licences would be handed over to the Provincial Council, which did not affect the amount of the licences, but the conditions under which they were issued. In 1906 the Cape Parliament had passed an Act which gave local authorities a certain amount of power in granting these licences, on the ground that a certain number of undesirable persons traded, in the Cape Colony at least, and it was desired to control them. Clause 3 of that Act stated that all persons holding existing general dealers’ licences in a district were exempted from the Act, and the result of that had been that they were not only exempt from that Act, but they might do other things, and in the same district might open new shops, might move from their place of business to another place of business, and generally extend the operations of their trade, so that it really counteracted the object of the Act of 1906, and took away from the local authorities the power to control people who were considered to be undesirable. They did not want one law in force in the Transvaal, another in the Cape, another in the Free State, and another in Natal.

seconded the motion, and said that in Kimberley they had experienced difficulty in the same way. When an individual applied to the Borough Council for a licence it was within the power of the Council to refuse it, on the ground that it was not a suitable locality. But when they once granted a licence to that individual and he stated that he was opening business in a certain part of the town, he could immediately go round to the Post Office and get that licence transferred to any other part of the town where he might wish to go. That took entirely out of the hands of the Council the power to regulate the position in which certain shops should be placed. He maintained that the power over transfers should be left in the hands of the Council.

said that this had certainly been one of the mistakes made by the old Cape Parliament in regard to granting licences. In 1906 they placed the power to grant licences in the hands of local bodies, Municipal and Divisional Councils, and he did not think there had been an Act passed by any Parliament which had led to more injustice than this. It was passed for keeping out a certain class of people—Asiatics—and he agreed to it. He admitted that he was a party to it as well as other members of that House, but the Act had been used to keep out men from carrying on business in Cape Colony, who had just as good a right to carry on business as any man in that House. In many cases the Municipal Councils in the villages were composed in a large degree of storekeepers, and they refused applications in many cases simply to keep down competition. (Hear, hear.) It was not fair; to his mind, it was most unjust. (Hear, hear.) He should like to see that power taken out of the hands of Municipal Councils and put in the hands of some other body, say, presided over by the Magistrate, that would take a more impartial view. There was absolutely no appeal against the decision of these Councils.

said that in this case wisdom was justified of her children. He remembered in 1906 opposing his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) tooth and nail, with the Minister of Railways, in regard to this Act. Five years had elapsed, and exactly the things had taken place which they predicted would take place. The grossest acts of injustice had been committed. In reference to the question of what should be done, he thought it was ridiculous to ask the Government this session to bring in any more Bills. They had got such a feast of legislation before them, and if they all made the same rapid progress that the Irrigation Bill had made through the House they would be sitting there until next Christmas.

said that he hoped the House would pass this motion. The difficulty raised by the last speakers was not that the principle was bad, but that the administration was bad. He would suggest that the Minister should accept the motion.

said if the Minister was not prepared to introduce legislation dealing with licences this session, he (Mr. Clayton) hoped he would give the Provincial Councils power to do so.

did not think the House should agree to accept the motion. He did not think any object could be gained by it. It would not be possible for Government during the present session to introduce legislation amending the Cape Act of 1906. He was very glad that he was not called upon to give any expression of opinion as to the wisdom of that law. He understood that some of his hon. friends opposite were responsible for placing this extraordinary Law on the Statute-book. The Financial Relations Commission had recommended that all licences should be transferred to the Provincial Councils. He intended to give power to the Provincial Councils to deal with laws of this kind, and he had no doubt if the law worked unsatisfactorily that the Cape Provincial Council would deal with it. However, he thought it would be unwise while the question of financial relations remained unsettled, to interfere with legislation which properly belonged to the Provincial Councils. For that reason he hoped the motion would be withdrawn.

said it would not do any harm to allow the Provincial authorities to consider the matter. His hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) opposed every measure introduced by the Cape Government in 1906, but the hon. member constantly changed his mind. They said that hundreds of small white traders were being cleared out of the country, and their places were being taken by Asiatics. (Opposition cheers.) They find that white men with their wives and families, who would become good South Africans, had to give way because a Chinaman came and opened a shop next door to them, so that the white storekeeper could not live. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.

moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of submitting proposals to this House for a contribution by the Union of South Africa to the British Navy calculated on the basis of the value of seaborne trade. The mover said he would not detain the House long, and he hoped those who would follow him would make their remarks as short as possible, so that they might bring, the matter to an issue that afternoon. This House was peculiarly constituted for the discussion of the question of that importance, because practically all its members were descended from the two greatest sea powers the world had yet seen. It was true that on sea they always had been: opposed to one another, and latterly also on land, yet there was always a peculiar feeling between them as enemies. He feared that owing to the wide wording of his motion an impression had gone abroad that he was anxious for the House to vote an exorbitant contribution to the Navy. That was not so. What he wanted was for the contribution to be placed on a business basis. He wanted to see, as our seaborne trade increased—and it only could increase by the sea power of Great Britain—he wanted to see our contribution to the Service which was responsible for that security and for our prosperity, increased. He admitted that the Minister of Defence was perfectly right in contending, as he (Mr. Silburn) contended 14 years ago, that adequate coast defence was an adjunct, and a very valuable adjunct, to sea power, and he wanted to see the cost of coast defence deducted from our contribution to the Navy.

The sea-power of the Dutch was responsible in the first place for the settlement in South Africa. It was owing to the meanness of the burgomasters in Holland that the sea-power of Holland fell from her into the hands of Great Britain. The security and independence of South Africa was solely in the hands of the Royal Navy. It had been responsible for building up our commerce and prosperity. The seaborne trade of the Union was 280 millions sterling, including the value of the ships carrying the goods. We were now contributing to the Navy a miserable £85,000 a year; £50,000 from the Cape Province, which he thanked God was protected by the Act of Union, and £35,000 from Natal, which, he thanked God again, was also-protected by the Act of Union. That. £85,000 was all we contributed to our own security and to prevent our country falling into the hands of a foreign power. Our ocean-borne trade was bound to increase, and as it increased our contribution to the Navy should also increase, and it should be placed on a business basis. The Natal contribution had been given on some sort of basis; it represented one per cent, of the revenue, and he believed that the Cape contribution was also on a basis, it represented ¾ per cent. of the revenue. There must be some understanding between our Government and the Imperial Government on this question. Whatever the extent of the contribution was the Minister of Defence would deduct something for the upkeep of our coast defences, because every pound put into our coast defence relieved the Royal Navy of the expenditure of probably £4 or £5. He hoped that the Minister of Defence would, with his usual reasonableness, accept the resolution, which was so widely framed as to enable the Government to come forward with some proposal of their own.

had much pleasure in seconding the motion and expressed the hope that it would receive more careful consideration from the Government than the last motion of this nature had. It would be seen from the motion, that there was no question of introducing legislation. All that is asked was that the Government should give the matter some consideration, and it also proposed some definite principle upon which any contribution to the British Navy should be based. He thought it a sound proposal that the various colonies that contributed towards the cost of the Navy should do so on some fixed principle. He anticipated that the Minister of Defence would tell them that the motion was premature, and that the country had enough hay on its fork by reason of the new defence scheme. In introducing the Act he said that he had not taken into consideration the question of naval defence. There were some of them who considered that the defence of their country was not complete without a consideration of naval defence. That was what the mover wished to bring before their consideration. For a hundred years the country had been dependent for its existence on the British Navy, and the time had now arrived when some change should be made Within the last two years the country had undergone a great change, the Act of Union had been passed, and on various platforms pride was expressed that we were now a young nation. But if we cut the leading strings from the mother country and were not able to fulfil our new responsibilities those expressions of pride became sheer hypocrisy. Anyone who took the trouble to go into statistics would find that the value of goods imported to and exported from South Africa in a year amounted to 100 millions sterling, without taking into account the value of the ships. Perhaps an even stronger consideration was the fact that we were dependent on outside sources to a great extent for our food supplies. The necessity therefore of considering some form of naval defence was obligatory upon us.

Continuing, he said that when he last spoke upon that subject he asked whether there was an understanding between the Imperial Government and the Union Government in regard to the question of naval defence, and he hoped that when the Minister replied to the motion before the House he would give an answer to that question. He thought the country desired to know whether there was any such understanding, because it was a very important matter in connection with the defence of the shores of South Africa. With regard to this question he would like the House to consider what would be the position of this country, so far as the defences of her shores were concerned, were it not for the Imperial Government. Suppose this country was an independent republic. He was-sure every hon. member would agree that they were practically independent at the-present time, and he thought that if they were proud of that independence they should justify the pride by being able to defend themselves entirely. But what would be the position of the country were it not for the Imperial Government? He took it that in such a case the Minister of Defence in bringing forward a Defence Bill would have also brought forward some scheme of defending the shores of South Africa in time of stress. They did not say that a Bill must be brought in at once, but what they did say was that the Government should give consideration to the matter, and that when the country was in a fit state the matter should be taken in hand, because as had been pointed out, this country possessed the richest attractions of any country in the world. Let them take the gold mines and the diamond mines which were the envy of other great nations, and what would they be able to do if it were not for the protection afforded by the British Navy. He thought they would not be possessed of these sources of wealth for very long. They were a source of attraction, even of temptation, and he thought that it was up to the Union Government to recognise its responsibilities and do something more than it was doing at the present time. They could not say that the paltry £85,000 a year w.as adequate. It was merely an acknowledgment of their obligations, and nothing more than that. It could not be said that it was an adequate contribution to make towards the naval defence of the shores of their country. Perhaps hon. members might ask what had other colonies, which were in the position which the Union of South Africa found itself today, done? That would be a fair question to ask. He did not mean to infer that they should follow the precedents set by other colonies, but rather that the Union should look upon its responsibilities from its own point of view, and do what was believed to be the-duty of the people of this country. Even if they made a contribution it should be on a basis which to the people of the Union would seem to be fair and reasonable. He found that Australia was contributing something like £390,500 in hard cash to the Imperial Navy, and moreover the people there were finding their own ships They were providing crews for the defence of their shores and commerce. Then there was the case of New Zealand, which had given two Dreadnoughts, representing in solid cash an amount of about five millions sterling. Then there was the case of Canada. She was building her own ships. He did not say that the Union was in a position to build ships, but he did say that it was time that they recognised their responsibilities and contributed adequately to the naval defence of their coasts and their commerce. The question was whether the Union should go further than it was going at the present time, or continue to depend upon the generosity of the British taxpayer. He pointed out for a hundred years the Mother Country had taken care of the shores of South Africa. Recently the Imperial Government had spent about two and a half millions on that big work at Simon’s Town; that amount came out of the coffers of the British taxpayers. That was not all. The existing works on the station cost considerably more than 2½ millions, and the expense every year down there was something enormous. If they took the interest alone of four millions at 3 per cent, it would mean £150,000 a year. He reckoned that the present expenses of the Admiralty at ‘Simon’s Town were something like £500,000 a year. The Naval Station at Simon’s Town was, therefore, costing the British taxpayer upwards of a million a year. He pointed out that during the last hundred years the British Government had never once asked for a contribution. At the Imperial Conferences, it was true, some of her statesmen had hinted that it was time that South Africa made a larger contribution, but nothing official had been said on the subject. If they had not done so, that was no reason why the Union should not recognise its responsibilities. The British Government trusted to the sense of honour of the people of South Africa to pay without being asked. Now that they had attained their majority, he thought it was up to them to recognise more fully their obligations and responsibilities towards the Imperial Government. They should be worthy of the trust that was placed in them by the passing of the Union, and not allow so heavy a burden to remain on the shoulders of the British taxpayer. He seconded the motion. (Cheers.)

said he was of opinion that the hon. gentleman who moved would agree with him eventually that the motion was inopportune, but not for the reasons that the hon. member for Simon’s Town submitted. He was not going to argue, as he might with much justification argue, that their new defence scheme released for service in other parts of the Empire those Imperial troops which it was necessary to retain in South Africa in the past, nor was he going to argue that in time of stress and trouble they were holding the ports of the Union against allcomers for the benefit of their naval and mercantile shipping; havens where they could recoal and replenish. This is a consideration and a very great consideration which might be put forward, but he would refrain from doing so. But what he did wish to emphasise was the fact that the total amount of duty rebated last year on goods imported from the United Kingdom was £538.033: from Canada, £16,256; from Australia, £45,918; and from New Zealand, £919—making a total of £601,126. It was with the first item that he wished to deal. During the last year that vast amount of £538,000 found its way out of the pockets of the taxpayers of South Africa—(laughter)—not to relieve the burden of the British taxpayer, not into the pockets of the British Treasury, but into the pockets of the individual manufacturer. We were receiving nothing in the shape of a quid pro quo, as Great Britain does not or could not under existing circumstances grant us any reciprocity. (Cries of “Oh!” and laughter.) Hon. members might argue that the burden of the British taxpayer was not diminished by this, as this half a million or more went into the pockets of certain individual manufacturers, but it was just that that made the position so ridiculously absurd. They received a mandate from the country at the last General Election that they should establish the fiscal policy on sound, business principles, and not on sentimental grounds. He did not wish to run down sentiment altogether; but when they found sentiment running in harness with gross absurdity, it was time to call a halt. (Laughter). Last year he laid stress on this question, and would have introduced a motion in the House urging readjustment of our fiscal policy, but he thought the question would be discussed at the Imperial Conference, and did not wish to anticipate anyone. Why he thought the motion inopportune and premature was because their whole fiscal policy would shortly have to be taken under review and readjusted: and it would have to be done this year. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about the sea-borne trade, and he (the speaker) thought this suggestion would find favour with him. If they were to collect the whole of the duty rebated and earmark half of it—that was 1½ per cent.—it would be for this year £270,000. Add that to the present naval contribution of £80,000. and it would make up their contribution to £350,000, and as time went on and the imports increased, so would the contribution increase. It would be presumption on his part—(Opposition cheers)—to offer a solution to this question. But he wished to say that the motion was premature and would be so until the fiscal policy had been readjusted. He intended referring to the attitude of Australia on this question, and would like to point out how heavily their explosives were taxed by Australia. Australia had been in the habit, up to the present, of calling the tune, and South Africa had been paying the piper. He hoped soon the position would be reversed, and South Africa would occasionally be able to call the tune; and in the meantime hoped the hon. member would see that the motion was inopportune and premature, and would withdraw it.

said it took some courage to support the motion after the speech by the hon. member for Waterberg. (Laughter.) If one got un in this House and talked about the Empire some people either called him a Jingo or others called him a megalomaniac. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) He would like to point out that they did not undertake to defend the ports of the Union. It was absolutely untrue to say they did. (Hear, hear.) When the Defence Bill went through, the ports of the Union would be defended by the British Government and not by the Union. The only exception to that was possibly Durban. As far as the Cape and Simon’s Town were concerned the defence of those ports would be entirely in the hands of Britain. Then the hon. member went on to talk of the rebates or Imperial preference—he did not like to use the word “Imperial” too often—and said that under this system they made a present of over £600,000 to manufacturers in Great Britain. But there was another point of view in connection with that, and it was that that amount was possibly saved to the consumer in South Africa. (Opposition cheers.) It did not go into the pockets of the manufacturer of Great Britain, but into those of the consumer of South Africa, and comparing South Africa with Australia, Australia also gave preference and also undertook the defence of all its posts, had a small navy of its own and also contributed to the British Navy. He did not see what that question of preference had to do with that question; it was not a question of what they were going to do for the British taxpayer, but a question of the defence of South Africa, and he did not think that any self-respecting nation was going to say that it was going to depend on another for its defence. The self-governing dominions of the British Empire were practically independent nations, and the only tie was the tie of the Grown; and as they were an entirely independent nation, it seemed perfectly clear that they should undertake their own defence. He, personally, thought that Canada and Australia had taken a very wrong line in creating small independent navies of their own—what the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had called “tin-pot navies”; and he was glad that Canada had gone back on that policy and was going to take up the same attitude which South Africa was going to take up. There were several ways in which they could defend themselves: there was the manner which the hon. member had mentioned—the defence of the ports. The Union was not going to undertake that. Then, they could make a contribution. The difficulty about that was that it was on no fixed basis; therefore, when a Treasurer came in who was of an economical turn of mind he might reduce the amount. If they had a contribution, they should have it on a fixed basis; and that was why his hon. friend had brought up that resolution. The question before the House was what was going to be the basis? At present there was none at all, and in their defence it was very essential that they should have a definite basis, on which to calculate the number Of their defence force and the strength of their fleet. They knew the basis on which Great Britain calculated the strength of her fleet, it was to be 60 per cent, stronger than any other fleet in Europe. They could have as a fixed basis so much per head of population, or calculated on the wealth of the community, or, what the hon. member had mentioned, which he (Mr. Wyndham) thought was the most practicable or suitable. He hoped that hon. members opposite would not go astray. What they wanted was to get the defence of South Africa on a proper basis, and he admitted that the Minister of Defence in his Bill was going to put the internal defence of South Africa on a proper basis, but he did not deal with the external defence; and until they had that also on a proper and final basis, they could not say that their defence, as a whole, was satisfactory. (Hear, hear.)

(who could at times be followed only with difficulty) said that there could be no question but that South Africa was at present standing in a very perilous position; and they knew that Great Britain was not in a very happy state as regards the future, and was straining every nerve to keep her security. It was no longer necessary for enemies to declare war beforehand, but they could strike when they were ready to do so. It was, therefore, necessary to be always prepared to keep the enemy at bay. They could take it for granted that as long as they remained under the shield of Great Britain they were safe; but without the help of the British Navy, even under the scheme of the Minister of Defence he did not think that the country could, be quite safe from invasion, and their forts would not be of much use against modern warships with their long-range guns. As had been pointed out, the other dominions were doing what they could to assist the British Navy, and here some people were even objecting to the small amount which they were contributing. As to preference, which the hon. member (Mr. Nicholson) had referred to, let them look at the small amount of it, compared to the preference which Canada gave. If they took the figures of our trade as given by the Treasurer the other day it seemed that our trade to and fro between Great Britain and South Africa was £95,000,000, and it was, he urged, a reasonable thing that this country should pay a small insurance on that trade by a contribution to the British Navy. He thought it was not only a matter of honour, but it was a privilege that we should help the British taxi payer to bear the enormous burden he had to bear in the way of naval expenditure, which now amounted to about £45,000,000 per annum. (Hear, hear.) He was not wedded to the exact form the contribution should take. They left that to the Government. What they asked the Government to do was to adopt the principle of this motion.

said that this was a grand occasion, and hon. members had risen nobly to it. He had never heard so much patriotism in so short a time. (Laughter.) What he rose to say was that if there were any practical feeling about this, there was a simple way of putting a great sum of money into the British taxpayer’s pocket, and that was by pointing out to them that they were keeping an unnecessary garrison in this country. The garrison at Pretoria and Bloemfontein was at the present time costing the British taxpayers something like a round million a year, a great deal more than any contribution we were likely to pay to the Navy. The only place the British Government wanted to keep a garrison in this country was the Cape Peninsula. That must be defended at all hazards. But what were they keeping troops in the country for?

Owing to Imperial obligations and complications in the East.

Do you suppose if any trouble broke out, a single British soldier would go out to fight? We have had to fight our own battles in the past. What I want to say is that if the Government of this country really want to assist the British taxpayer, they will point out that it is not worth while keeping these troops, to line the pockets of the local shopkeepers. That is a much better way; much better than all this grand talk about the Navy, because we know this is out of the question at present. We heard the statement of the Treasurer the other day, and I think some of us are appalled at the prospect before us. Let us tell the British Government that they can relieve the taxpayer to the tune of a round million by taking away the garrison from the interior of this country, where it is not wanted where it is costing a great deal of money, and that will be a true patriotism and a true aid to the Empire, far more than making speeches in this House. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had seldom heard the right hon. the member for Victoria West deliver so ill-informed a speech as he had made that afternoon in regard to the Imperial garrison in the interior. He ventured to say that on the right hon. gentleman’s side of the House there were very few hon. members who would like to see the garrison in the interior removed. He knew that in the Transvaal there was an affection for that garrison. That, however, was not an answer to the right hon. gentleman. The answer to him was that Great Britain had very large obligations in the interior of South Africa, that she was responsible at the present time for safeguarding large native and other territories that were not yet within the Union, and that Great Britain had to maintain a garrison to keep good faith with South Africa. He thought South Africa would have cause for complaint if before the Union had completed its defence scheme the British Government were to remove its garrison and leave us entirely to deal with those native territories for which Great Britain was responsible at the present time. Why did the right hon. gentleman object to the motion? It was not a new matter. Did he take exception to it, because their eloquence was not as great as his own? Surely it was the motion, and not the speeches which mattered. The hon. member (Mr. Silburn) deserved the gratitude of the House for reminding it of obligations they were a little inclined to forget, that the obligations of Union were of the greatest importance, and that those obligations did make it necessary for us to consider the position and the manner in which we could relieve the Empire of some of the responsibility of defending our shores. (Opposition cheers.)

said that England was regarded as the father of South Africa. South Africa was the youth who had just been placed on a farm, and how, the asked, could they demand that he should pay his father for his education? England drew sufficient advantage from her trade with South Africa, and should for the present be satisfied. The expenses of the Union were heavy enough, and they could not make a money contribution to England. The money available should be employed for the formation of a South African army able to defend the country. England was rich and strong, and needed no money help from this country. He was therefore opposed to the motion.

said that despite the many patriotic utterances, with which he heartily agreed, he was unable to vote for the motion. In the first place, we had Union for about two years, and we were just now tackling the question of defence. Let us leave alone the patriotic side for a moment, and take a business view of the matter. One of our first duties was to provide for the defence of South Africa. We were tackling the internal part, and that was going to throw a considerable additional burden on the taxpayer. The Naval part might well be left alone for a year or two longer, until they had solved the first part. He had heard discussions about the Australian Navy—which had been called a “tin-pot” affair—but he had heard nothing to make him change his general view that it was more dignified to provide for our own defence by training men for the purpose, than to pay policemen to do so. (Hear, hear.) For a country like South Africa, that was a difficult question, and he was not prepared to commit himself to such a resolution as that, that the Naval responsibility should be acquitted by means of a contribution to the Imperial Navy. The proposition that the contribution to the Navy should be on the basis of South Africa’s sea-borne trade was a very debatable one. (Hear, hear.) Contingencies might arise which would make such a contribution altogether inadequate or, it might be, altogether excessive. It was a very open question whether our prosperity could be measured by the volume of our seaborne trade. South Africa might have an immense sea-borne trade, but its inhabitants might be anything but prosperous. He would like to submit to hon. members on the Opposition side that the Mother Country was not in a cast-iron hurry for us to contribute. The Mother Country knew perfectly well that we were undertaking our own internal defence, which would relieve the Imperial taxpayer of all responsibility within the Union. The best service would render to the Mother Country and to the Empire was to devote all our own energies to make our own internal affairs such that the people of South Africa were a prosperous and a contented people. (Cheers.)

did not agree with the previous speaker that the time was inopportune for discussion. He had been glad to hear the hon. member for Wakkerstroom speak on the subject, because often people in the inland portions of a country were apt to undervalue the necessity for sea defence. Until we recognised that the efficiency of our defence was largely dependent on the efficiency of sea defence, we should not have put our house in order As a self-reliant people, it was as necessary for us to consider this as the question of repressing an insurrection within our borders. The difficulty he had in voting for the motion was that it committed the House to a definite method of payment, on the basis of the value of our sea-borne trade. The hon. member for Jeppe had put that very clearly, and his reasons were good. If the hon. member would amend his motion so as to strike out the words after “British Navy,” he would vote for it, because other methods of making the contribution suggested them selves: there was the basis of out population, and the basis of revenue, which might be called equally sound bases. At present, they had no information as to the best method of calculating the contribution. Therefore, he thought that the House would be well advised to adopt the motion in the simplified form. As to the statement of the right hon. member for Victoria West that what we ought to do in this matter was to ask the Imperial Government to withdraw their troops, which were here partly for our protection and partly for the convenience of His Majesty’s Government, he thought it self-condemnatory. Supposing that the troops were removed, the question would remain how much were we going to contribute towards sea defence. He thought the general sense of the House was that as a nation which intended to hold its head up amongst the nations of the world, we had to consider seriously this question, and ask the Government to put a proposal before the House at their convenience. He did not think it necessary to bring forward such a proposal during this session, but the time had arrived when the Government ought to direct their attention to this very important matter.

said that he would like to support the motion, but he agreed with the last speaker that the basis upon which he proposed to calculate the contribution might be a bone of contention. He moved an amendment to insert “an increased” before “contribution,” and to delete all the words after “British Navy.” The motion would then read: “That in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived that the Government should take into, consideration the advisability of submitting proposals to the House for an increased contribution by the Union of South Africa to the British Navy.” He thought that in that form the motion would be more commendable. He did not wish to labour the reasons for an increased contribution. Naval defence was a part of the defence of South Africa. It was not a case of a contribution to an alien power. That was sufficient reason why the Government should take the matter into early consideration. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Jeppe as to whether it was better to make a contribution to the Imperial Navy or to have a navy of our own, there was much to be said on both sides, and he did not wish his vote to be taken as committing himself to either view. He was inclined to favour the latter alternative. The motion would be expressing the opinion that South Africa was not doing enough in contributing to her own defence in cash or kind, and there was no question at present about starting a navy of our own. At any rate, we should fulfil, to a certain extent, our obligations by increasing our contribution.

seconded the amendment.

said that there had been some considerable misunderstanding in the House in regard to the motion. When he first read the motion he was in very serious doubt as to the meaning of the hon. member, whether he wanted to maintain the present contribution by putting it on a fixed basis, a basis calculated on the value of the seaborne trade of the Union, or whether he wanted an increased grant made to the British Navy. The motion seemed to be capable of both these interpretations, but after the hon. members had spoken it was perfectly plain that he did not mean any increased contribution, but a contribution calculated on this definite basis. So after that he saw what the hon. member was aiming at was not an increased contribution, but a contribution upon a definite basis. The hon. member for Fordsburg also saw this ambiguity in the motion, and did not like the motion in the sense interpreted by the mover, and he had moved an amendment to the effect that this basis should be knocked out, and a different superstructure put on, namely, an increased grant. To his surprise, the hon. member for Durban, Point, seemed to acclaim this amendment—

“Seemed!”

(continuing) said that after having put a very definite construction on his own motion the hon. member now on the first show of opposition ran away from that motion. (Laughter.)

I have not said a word. (Laughter.)

went on to say that there could be no doubt that there was very little to be said for the motion in the form in which it was interpreted by the mover himself. He said, in effect, pay your £85,000 per annum, but it on a fixed and definite basis. That was the interpretation he put on his speech, and that was the reason for the amendment. He would first take the motion on that basis. In the first place he agreed with the hon. member for Jeppe that the policy underlying such a change would be entirely indefensible, and he doubted whether the House would commit itself at once to this basis of our seaborne traffic. Apart from that, suppose the Government were to adopt the motion of the hon. member and to come forward to the House with a proposal of legislation, saying that in the future our contribution should be .0895 per cent. of our sea-borne traffic—that was the percentage of £85,000 to the £95,000,000, the value of our seaborne traffic. What would the House think if the Government were to adopt the motion in that sense and say that in the future we should pay, not £85,000, but .0895 of the value of our sea-borne traffic? (Laughter.) So the motion in the form proposed by the hon. member ought to be set aside. He did not think that any purpose would be served by accepting that. Then they came to the other alternative which was now sought to be put upon the motion by the hon. member for Fordsburg, an increased grant. In regard to that, he was surprised that the question should have been raised at all just now, because the Government had considered the matter. In the second reading of the Defence Bill he had explained very fully the attitude of the Government upon this point. He had explained that there were various ways of helping the British taxpayer, and the best way at present, and the way they had adopted, was to put our defences on a satisfactory footing. The House had, he took it, accepted the position as explained by him, and in the subsequent debate scarcely a word was said about this question of a naval contribution. One or two hon. members casually referred to it, but the House was satisfied that the attitude the Government had taken up was satisfactory, that they should first dispose of this question of internal defence, see what liabilities were likely to be incurred, and thereafter decide this question of a naval contribution. That was the position. The Government had considered the question, and had come to the conclusion that they should deal with the question in the form laid down. They were going to incur very large liabilities in preparing for the internal defence of South Africa. He had said when the second reading of the Defence Bill was being considered, that they had calculated that the increased expenditure would amount to about £300,000 a year. He was extremely inclined to think that the expense had been, under estimated, and when the Bill came from the Select Committee, he thought they would find that the sum needed would be far greater than that which was originally estimated. That being so, and taking also into consideration the speech of his hon. friend the Treasurer only a couple of days ago as to the financial position of the Union, he thought they should reserve this question of a naval contribution to some future date. Their task was, in all conscience, big enough, and the expense would be great enough, and after they had determined their liabilities in this regard, then they could consider the matter and determine whether they could extend the scope and do something further. He thought that hon. members made the great mistake at looking at the services rendered to the British Navy as confined to the paltry £85,000 a year. He admitted that it was a paltry sum, but he thought that they should also consider the other expenditure that was being incurred, and did not think that this naval contribution should be taken by itself. They had to look upon the question as a whole, and he thought it was unfortunate that this paltry sum was put on the Estimates as a separate vote, for it might be considered that it was framed in a niggardly spirit. He thought that South Africa was doing a great deal for its own defence, and was going to do a great deal more in the immediate future. It was coming to the assistance of the British taxpayer in a most appreciable fashion. He thought that the argument that had been advanced by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom was a very sound one. His hon. friend had said in effect that the money that was spent in the development of South Africa in the end meant more not only to South Africa, but the British Empire, than the sum contributed to the Navy. Hon. members would see the enormous force of that argument. He thought that a sum of £100,000 a year, or £200,000 a year spent in the development of South Africa, meant a great deal more to the British Navy and the British Empire than the mere sending away out of this country of a certain sum of money annually. Therefore, he thought they ought to look upon this matter a whole, and not look upon this contribution to the British Navy apart from the other work that was being done in South Africa, and which was assisting the British taxpayer to a large extent. It was true that in other Dominions larger contributions were being made to the Imperial Navy. He knew that Australia and New Zealand were making contributions, and were building their own fleets. But hon. members must remember that these contributions were based very largely, so far as his information went, on the understanding that the British Navy would maintain an adequate force in the Eastern seas. If hon. members had followed the discussions that took place years ago when this matter was considered they would find that the discussions went on those lines. The fear was that the British Navy would leave the East and concentrate in the West, and that they would be unprotected in the East, and it was largely owing to that consideration that they came to the assistance of the British Navy. Then they commenced to build their ships, but everything was done on the understanding that these ships should serve in Eastern waters.

was understood to point out that certain of these ships were nearer Great Britain

That seems to be a later arrangement. Continuing, he said that here in South Africa they took an entirely different view. The Australian view was that their coasts must be adequately defended. They in South Africa did not hold that view. They did not say anything about the small station at Simon’s Town, because they knew that the fate of the British Navy would not be determined here, but in different waters, and they did not object to concentration taking place away from their shores in waters which would be the scene of future operations.

Ours was an entirely different standpoint from that of Australia. Their idea had been for a long time to get an adequate squadron up in the Pacific, whereas we did not care if there was a very large fleet here in South Africa. To us it was sufficient to know that that Navy was strong, and would protect us in time of need. We were helping that Navy in the most effective way possible. Hon. members would understand that any contribution that South Africa could afford to pay would appear paltry beside the forty millions which the British taxpayers had to contribute, and therefore no great change was likely to be made by any contribution they could make. They therefore wished to see how their money could be spent to the best advantage for South Africa and the British taxpayers, and they wanted to see how they could defend South Africa best. They were now taking steps to effect that. He wished to correct the statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham), who seemed to be under the impression that the British Army would continue to defend the seaport towns. What he (the Minister) said some time ago was that the Army authorities had notified them that they wished the present position in the Cape Peninsula to be maintained. That was: they would not call upon them at once to take over the entire land defence of the Cape Province. They wanted to give them time. That was entirely their idea; but it was coming. As sure as anything, the day was coming. They had seen what had been said publicly in the British Parliament. The day was coming when they would have to take over the land defences of South Africa, and also the entire defence of South Africa, and that being so, he thought they were helping the British Army very considerably in this matter. He did not think it necessary to follow the suggestion of his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman), and to notify the British Government that the time had come when their forces might be removed from their shores. He did not think any such suggestion, coming from them, would be received in a very good spirit, and he was also sure that the British Government was anxiously awaiting the moment when their house would be in order, and they would be able to cast off this burden of maintaining a large force in South Africa; he hoped, in their own interests, the day would soon come when their house would be in order, and this burden would be removed from the shoulders of the British taxpayer. (Hear, hear.) He did not think it necessary for him to add anything to that. They had considered the question, and he did not think it was necessary for them, year after year, in what seemed to him an undignified manner, to wrangle over this matter. There was no doubt they were trying to do their duty, and were taking on enormous liabilities to undertake their own defence and take the burden off the British taxpayers; and why this question should be dragged up year after year he could not see. Many members were perfectly willing to help the British Navy in a more appreciable way than they had done hitherto, and yet who would not like to make a contribution to that navy in the form which had been customary. There were others who would like to help, but who would perhaps like to put their assistance in a different form. He saw that the hon. member for Fordsburg favoured the policy adopted by Australia, and it might be that other members on full and ample consideration would come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, there was a strong feeling in this House that on strategical grounds there was no necessity to keep up a small navy. So there were many difficulties, and they had many problems which they were trying to solve, and that being so—he was not expressing any opinion against the motion or the amendments, but he thought the time had not come for them to declare themselves on that question. They might leave it over, and he hoped the hon. member would not press this motion any further. (Government cheers.)

said he did not know whether to admire more the great heights of oratory reached by the hon. member for Waterberg, or the subtleties of the hon. Minister in replying to the more than extraordinary statements made by the father of the House, the right hon. member for Victoria West. A more extraordinary statement he did not think anybody had heard in that House or anywhere else. (Hear, hear.) The Minister for the Interior seemed to think that it was impossible to reconcile the motion moved by the hon. member for Durban with the idea of an increased contribution to the Navy, and because he considered that motion was subject to two interpretations he thought it was a good principle that the Minister of Defence should, on a question of this sort, sit down, having said he was not prepared to make up his mind one way or another on a question of this sort. (Opposition cheers.) That was the whole tenour of his speech. He thought his (the Minister’s) difficulty was that he did not know how the votes were going to go—(Opposition cheers)—and possibly was not prepared to express an opinion. This they had constantly seen was the attitude adopted on this and other questions this session, (Opposition cheers.) He would say to the hon. member for Durban that he would perhaps be well advised to accept the amendment, because the object of it was exactly the same. It was a position which had not been taken up now for the first time; it was a position that was taken up immediately the Union Parliament assembled; but he must say in discussion on the first estimates the Minister of Defence gave a far more’ sympathetic answer than he had given them that afternoon. His memory carried him back to two answers given by the Minister. The first was on the first Budget, when he gave a far more hopeful reply, and on the second Budget his hon. friend was a little more cautious. That afternoon he had practically told them the Government was not prepared to express an opinion one way or another, and went further and said he thought it was an undignified thing to bring up a motion of this sort year after year. He thought it was undignified for the Government not to give an opinion on this question, and it was undignified of this country not to give an adequate contribution to the Navy. (Opposition cheers.)

What do you think is adequate?

I should say that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, and considering the resources of the Union, that £400,000 or £500,000 would not be an excessive contribution, considering the enormous measure of the services which we receive. Continuing, he asked whether his hon. friend, or any other hon. member of that House, recognised what the position of that country would be and the monetary sacrifices, it would have to make, were they an independent State at the present moment? His hon. friend the hon. member for Durban Point (Major Silburn) had referred to the oversea trade of Great Britain and of that country; and the people of South Africa only paid something, as the Minister of Defence had stated, like one-tenth of one per cent. Taking the population of South Africa as roughly 1¼ million white people, they contributed towards the defence of their shores and the maintenance of their independence something equivalent to 1s. 4d. per head, or 4d. it they took the white and the native population. The British taxpayer paid over a sovereign for the same services, and, surely, their contribution in South Africa was anything but in the nature of an adequate contribution He repudiated in the strongest manner possible the Government placing such an interpretation as they had just now upon the action of the House and of the Opposition with regard to the Defence Bill; and although they were all in favour of placing a defence force in that country on the strongest possible basis, and although there might be a certain amount of assistance given towards the defence of their ports, they recognised that that defence force was established for the-maintenance of law and order within the Union and that the contribution to the Imperial Navy was given upon a double basis—upon the basis of assisting in the-defence of their own shores, and secondly, of assisting in the defence of the British Empire, of which they happened to form a part. He was extremely sorry that no hon. member of the opposite side of the House had referred to the latter question; or had touched upon that side of that important question. It was the first principle of the plank of the platform of the Unionist party, adopted at the Congress held at Bloemfontein in May, 1910, just before the establishment of Union, that the contribution towards the upkeep of the British Navy should be increased, and should be an adequate one. He did hope that hon. members would recognise that, even if the question of sentiment was not considered, it was impossible for them to expect that the taxpayers of Great Britain should continue to bear the increasing burden on them of the cost of the supremacy of the British Navy, and it was absolutely essential that it should be kept up with some assistance from the outlying portions of the British Empire. What he would say to the Minister of Defence was that if it was necessary to have a fleet sufficiently strong to meet any fleet which might be brought against them, surely it was necessary, that as their independence here in South Africa was as much at stake as that of Great Britain, according to their wealth and resources they should adopt an attitude that they should give a fair and reasonable contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy which defended their shores. Many years ago Sir James Rose-Innes, in the Cape House, had advocated a contribution of £50,000 a year being given to the British Navy, which had been adopted, and that had been followed by Natal, who contributed £35,000. Would his hon. friend tell them that the conditions of the country, now they had entered into a great Union, and their wealth and resources were far greater than they were then, were not such that it was the duty of that House to say that they would be prepared to increase that contribution, which had then been inadequate, and was far more inadequate at the present moment?

said that as to what the last speaker had said, he had understood the Minister to say that the best method of defending the Empire, or contributing towards the defence of the Empire, was to go forward one step at a time, and go forward gradually, and it seemed a pity that these two questions of land and naval defence should now be taken up at the same time, and that they should be raised in the House. It made it appear (quite falsely) that those who did hot see eye to eye with the hon. member opposite were not interested in the defence of the Empire. He understood that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) rather read a lecture to members on the side opposite to his that they should not consider the contribution to the British Navy as one to an alien Power. He thought that they had lived down a feeling of that sort.

said he had no intention of using any words to convey an intention of that kind, and if it were thought that they had that intention, he would be pleased to withdraw them.

said he had asked the acting leader of the Opposition what would be a reasonable contribution. He replied, between £400,000 and £500,000. Our sea-borne trade was about one-twelfth the trade of the United Kingdom. Take one-twelfth the cost of the Navy, that was about four millions. So he did not see how they could arrive at any finality by acting upon the suggestion of the hon. member. By far the soundest doctrine of Imperialism which he had heard put forward that afternoon was that put forward by his hon. friend the member for Wakkerstroom. They should not take any arithmetical basis for a recognition of then-obligations in this matter. There seemed to be an entire misapprehension as to the whole question, the whole constitution of the British Empire. He thought it was a spurious Imperialism. (Cries of “Oh.”) He did not wish to use hard words; but there seemed to him to be a misunderstanding of the proper attitude between the Dominions and the Empire. He was in entire sympathy with the view that by far the greatest contribution which we could make to the defence of the Empire, by far the greatest relief which we could give to the taxpayer of the United Kingdom, was by means of strengthening our defences at the present time. It might in future be desirable that We should do more. What answer could be given to the argument put forward by the right hon. the member for Victoria West? It might not be pleasant to them that the Imperial garrison should be withdrawn, but they could not read the debates in the House of Commons without realising that; this garrison was a most serious drain. We appeared, he went on to say, to be sliding into a theory of the constitution of the Empire, which he, for one, thought was most imprudent, because, whatever our Imperial institutions might be, they required most careful consideration. If we were going to say that we must calculate these things on a basis of equality, we were confronted with large, far-reaching, political considerations, which would have to be faced some day, but which, certainly, this was not the moment to face At the present time we were not playing the part of equality in the Empire, for the “foreign policy of the Empire was dictated—and he thought it was a very good thing that it should be—by the United Kingdom. Surely we did not want to raise this great constitutional question at the present moment. Rather should we realise that Great Britain had set before herself the glorious part of being a nurse and mother to young nations in the world, that she should voluntarily undertake the defence of these young nations in the main from external aggression for, at any rate, a Jong period of time, that as a result of that these nations should grow up attached to the Empire, cognisant of the benefits they had obtained, and determined to do what they could to assist the Empire in her time of need. He trusted that the hon. member for Durban Point would withdraw his motion.

said he wanted to say one or two words by way of moving an amendment. He had been assailed by the hon. member for East London and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for having said that he was opposed to a contribution to the Navy and for having disparaged the Navy. On the contrary, he had always been in favour of giving a contribution to the Navy. He went a long way with what the hon. member said, although he thought this was a singularly inopportune time of bringing it forward. There was a great difficulty about making a contribution to the Navy, because it opened up the question of the control of the Navy. (Hear, hear.) If we made a contribution upon any large scale to the Navy, either we had a voice in the control of the Navy or of the policy which led to the employment of the Navy—(hear, hear)—or else we were paying tribute. Great Britain, to her credit, be it said, had never wished to get tribute from her dominions, from her daughter States. The only sound basis upon which they could place anything in the nature of a contribution was a policy of insurance, and the only way that policy could be worked out was the insurance of sea-borne trade. So far, he agreed with the hon. member for Durban, Point. When the question had been debated seriously, when it was going to lead to some conclusion, he had held this view, as opposed to the policy of separate fleets, which was a ruinous policy. (Cheers.) It was a perfect waste of money, for reasons that he need not go into. It was a wrong policy, and a policy which, he regretted to say, had been encouraged on a certain occasion by the British Government itself. He did not think it was at all fair in any way to minimize our obligations to the Navy, our attachment to the Navy, and our duties to the Navy. But the present was a singularly inopportune time to bring it forward, because it could only lead to patriotic speeches, which could have no result—(cheers)—and because people might be inclined to vote against the motion, it would be said that they were opposed to the contribution altogether, which they were not, when the proper time came for discussing that question. In regard to what he had said about the British Army, the hon. member for East London said that the garrison was kept there, and that people were very pleased to see them there. Of course they were. They were very popular, and he hoped that the British soldier was popular wherever he went. It was a different matter when it came to a question of indulging our kind notions at the expense of the British taxpayer, who was now paying £1,000,000 a year for these troops up-country, where the cost of living was extremely high, and altogether it was a most unsuitable place for them to be kept. Neither would he say that the country should be entirely denuded of British troops. For many years the defence of the Cape Peninsula would require a body highly-trained men. The nation that held the Cape had the maritime supremacy of the world. Therefore, he considered that, if they wished to do a patriotic thing, they ought to point out most respectfully that the troops were not needed at present in the interior of the country, and that the only two places where they were now needed were Cape Town and Durban—one was an Imperial post, and the other the most valuable coaling station for the East. Until twelve years ago there were no troops in the interior, and people were not then alarmed. He hoped that he had made himself clear. He had been a little provoked by the tone of the speeches, but he did dislike to hear these high-falutin’ speeches delivered on an occasion when everybody knew in his heart that no practical result would follow. He did not wish to vote against the motion of the hon. member, because he would be misunderstood. He would move the previous question.

Is it competent for an hon. member who has already spoken on the debate to move an amendment?

The hon. member cannot move the previous question upon a motion on which an amendment has been moved.

resuming, said that he had no idea of the kind of amendment the right hon. member had in mind when he gave way for him. He had made a second speech. He welcomed it. It was better than the first. He differed from the right hon. member and others who looked upon this question in the same way. It was not solely to give relief to the British taxpayer. That would be a factor, but it was not the main consideration. There was a much more serious thing. They had been told that it was a pity to go into peddling calculations to determine their liabilities or the share they should contribute. He noticed that whenever an uncomfortable proposal was made for a contribution, something was said about a peddling calculation or a sordid tie. Then they got taken off on a much more high-falutin’ and unconvincing vein of patriotism. They came down to the fact, how much were they going to contribute, no matter what the basis was? It was an obligation from the point of view of the Empire, and from the point of view of South Africa it was common-sense and simple business. The suggestion as to the removal of the troops was beside the point. The proposal did not involve any rush. If it had not been brought forward this session there would be no possibility of provision next year. It was a timely notice, and the motion was very mildly and reasonably put.

What was going to happen? A few years ago the British Navy was building to a three-power standard, then it was a two-power standard, and now it had come down to 60 per cent, over one-power standard. What was going to happen in a few years? It had come down to 60 per cent, over a one-power standard, and the British Navy was entering the stage of a determined struggle, for the peace of the world was guaranteed by the strength of the British Navy. Every nation made acknowledgment of that save one. The strength of the British Navy was of world-wide interest, but it concerned South Africa more than anybody else. They had no chance if the British Navy went under. They would have no chance of protecting themselves or communicating with the outside world. There was not a man in this country, not a sheep farmer, a fruit farmer, a man of agriculture, or any man whose future lay in this country that had not a stake in this matter. They were getting nearer and nearer the point when the resources of the British Isles would not be equal to bearing the burden. They would wake up to the day of reckoning when they found someone else in charge of their coasts. The people inland might hold their own for a time, but the future of the country would be gone. He supported entirely the proposal that had been made. There had been a suggestion of modification so that they should not be bound to a certain course of action. He did not care whether it was on the basis of .0495 or any other point. It was no use holding the matter up to ridicule by decimal points as the Minister of Defence had done. It would not be a question of decimals when the day of reckoning came. The questions were: Are we going to consider the question of an increased contribution to the Navy, and is it good business for South Africa? He thought that after consideration they would find that it was good business that such a contribution should be made.

pointed out that the Imperial soldiers here were not here for the purpose of protecting South Africa alone, but because they were a part of a great strategic scheme of the British Empire. Continuing, he pointed out that if they were to defend their own coasts the cost of so doing would be ten times as great as the £85,000 per annum that they were contributing to the British Navy. He thought it was their duty to contribute a larger sum. He thought in the circumstances the debate might be adjourned until the whole scheme of defence came before the House, because no danger was imminent. He did not want to embarrass the Government, but he hoped that the matter would be considered calmly and clearly. He did not like the motion in its present form, but he did think that the principle that had been enunciated was sound, and one that he, as a loyal subject of the British Empire, should support.

said that the amendment did not meet with his approval, for in spite of what the Minister had said his motion aimed at placing the contribution to the British Navy on a solid and business footing. He contended that as their trade increased so should the contribution to the Imperial Navy be increased. He pointed out that the motion had been worded most clearly. He was shocked at the speech that had been delivered by the right hon. member for Victoria West, because it was only last session that he made a very fine speech to illustrate the danger that was coming from the East. He referred to the presence in this port of a Japanese cruiser and told them that a chill went down his own back when he saw it there, because it meant danger in the future. (Hear, hear.) Then how was that danger going to be forestalled but by the British fleet? (Hear, hear.) Now he was going to be unpalatable, but straight, by telling them that the independence of Holland, Belgium, Sweden and Norway was secured solely and wholly by the British fleet, which he asked them in all humility to acknowledge by contributing to it on the lines laid down by the right hon. member for Victoria West. As he wished to bring this to a division he wished to withdraw the motion in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg. (Hear, hear.)

called for a division, the result of which was as follows:

moved: That all papers relating to the arrangement made by the Transvaal Government with the Transvaal mine owners with regard to the supply of native labour to the mines, and especially affecting the importation of native labour from foreign territories, be laid upon the table.

seconded the motion.

said that he had no objection to the motion, but it was rather difficult to know what it meant, and he asked whether it should not be the “relations of the Portuguese Government with the Transvaal mine-owners?” Nor did he think that the hon. members wanted “all” the papers, as some of the records were at Johannesburg.

The motion was agreed to.

moved That the petition from R. E. Clarence and 365 others, voters and residents of Griqualand East, praying for the extension of the Natal—Cape Railway, from Franklin to Kokstad, presented to the House on the 7th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration. The hon. member said that the extension would only be 20 miles in length, and would pass through, very easy country; the construction would not cost very much. It would give the people of the district not only the facilities of the Durban and Johannesburg market, but also Maritzburg, and would enable them to get goods from Natal. It would also enable their farmers to send away more produce, as the ox-wagon transport had been suspended for the last two years owing to East Coast fever restrictions, and donkey and mule wagon traffic was most expensive. Kokstad was one of the great stations for the C.M.R., and was a very healthy place for man and horse alike, and it would prove an important place in connection with the new Defence Scheme. The Cape—Natal Line conveyed a very large number of native passengers to the Rand, and the Transkei supplied more natives to the Rand than any other part of the Union. He thought every facility should be given to the natives to go and seek work on the Rand. This was all the more necessary, because of the poverty among the natives. In East Griqualand they had a great deal of land which would carry a large population if they had railway facilities.

seconded the motion.

said that he looked upon the extension of this railway as a very important part of our railway system. There were great wattle-growing possibilities in the district, which would be tapped by a line to East Griqualand. There were also great possibilities in the way of wool and potato growing.

said he did not think much practical benefit was to be derived from referring a motion of this character to the Government. This railway, perhaps, was in the position of many others, that it had strong advocates, and he supposed they could make out a very good case for building a railway anywhere in the Union. In this particular case he might say that, as Minister of Railways, he had given it very great consideration. If it were referred to the Government, he should offer no objection. It could not very well receive more consideration than he had given it. Still, he would consider it again, but he did not know that any fresh light would be, thrown upon it by passing that resolution. He saw there were a number of other resolutions suggesting that the Government should consider proposals for railways, and he should like his remarks to apply to them all, because he wished at this stage to be absolutely impartial in dealing with them, in other words, he did not and he could not indicate at present what would be done in regard to the lines mentioned. The whole country wanted railways, not only members for their constituencies, but every voter wanted a railway. (Laughter.) He saw the House was in a vein to spend money, and he sometimes thought the bigger his railway scheme was the easier it would be to get it through. At the same time, he would say that it was not his intention to propose a very ambitious railway scheme.

said that this was really a very important proposal. The district was one of the most important agricultural and stock districts in the country. In the past, it had not had that fair consideration that it was entitled to owing to the jealousies of Natal and the Cape, but now that the colonies were united, perhaps there might be some chance of this proposal being brought to fruition.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition from M. N. Krynauw, a teacher under the Education Department at Strydenburg, district of Hope Town, praying that a certain break in his service may be condoned and previous service added to his term of office for good service allowance purposes, or for other relief, presented to the House on the 11th April, 1911, be laid upon the table of the House, and if agreed to, that it be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

seconded the motion.

stated that the petition (No. 576, 1910-11) was on the table.

asked the Minister for a statement on the question of teachers’ pensions.

said that the question of salary was undoubtedly a Provincial matter, because the teachers were paid by the Provinces. In regard to pensions, which were based on salary, in so far as they were paid to officers who were in the service before Union, the pensions were now paid out by the Treasury, because there was no pension law for the Union or for the Provinces since Union. It was impossible to deal with the question of teachers’ salaries on the same basis as Civil Servants, and the Civil Service Bill would not include pensions to teachers. Until salaries had been placed on a general basis, a uniform pension law was out of the question.

The motion was agreed to.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions.

moved: That the petitions from D. J. van Schalkwijk and 156 others, and M. Stegmann and 64 others, presented to this House on the 6th March, 1912, praying for the extension of the Lindley-road-Senekal line of railway to Marquard, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from H. P. Serfontein and 662 others, inhabitants of the districts of Kroonstad and Vredefort, praying for further railway construction through those districts, presented to the House on the 26th February, 1912, be referred to the Government tor consideration. He said that this question had been brought up for years, but the war had intervened. Before the war the need for such a line had been impressed upon the Government. The line would be 42 miles long, and would pass through one of the most fertile districts in the Free State, between the Vials and Rhenoster rivers, where every inch of ground could be cultivated. It would also serve the Voorspoed and other mines. So that there was no question but that it would pay. As the western portion of the Free State was absolutely devoid of railways, he hoped that the Minister would give earnest attention to the request.

seconded the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petitions from J. P. Kent and 6,227 others and from J. P. Kent and 6,228 others, against the proposed abolition of the Master’s Office at Kimberley, and against the proposed abolition of the local division of the Supreme Court at Kimberley, respectively, presented to the House on February 12, 1912, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from J. J. Schreuder and 62 other inhabitants of the district of Hay, praying the House to introduce legislation whereby Field-cornets, Justices of the Peace, and scab inspectors may be elected for appointment by the Parliamentary voters of the districts or wards which they serve, presented to the House on February 23, 1912, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded the motion.

said the motion was rather important. They had already taken an important motion dealing with railway construction with the Minister absent. Now they proposed to take another very important motion dealing with the appointment of scab inspectors without the House knowing anything about it and the Minister of Agriculture not in his place. He moved that the debate be adjourned until Wednesday, 3rd April. It was becoming rather indecent to take measures of this sort in a slipshod manner.

seconded.

said that the motion was only that the matter be referred to the Government for consideration, but if there was any objection the debate would, of course, be adjourned.