from J. F. W. Crankshaw, Principal. Sydney-on-Vaal (Diggers’) School, Kimberley.

from W. Makenana, retired from the Railway Service.

as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Scrap Iron Agreement (with a minority report), and moved that the reports and evidence be printed and considered on Thursday, the 6th June.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the House at its rising to-day adjourn until Monday, the 27th inst., at 2 o’clock p.m.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that Mr. Hull be a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

seconded.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your ruling on this motion. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that on January 31 the Minister of Finance, who was then the hon. member for Barberton, was appointed a member of the committee. I should like to ask whether he is still a member of the committee, and, if so, whether it is advisable to reappoint him? I think there are some decided inconveniences in laying down a wrong precedent in this matter.

The Hon. the Minister has taken the proper course in making this motion.

Does the committee consist of ten or eleven members now?

The committee consists of the same number as before.

Then the hon. member for Barberton takes the place of the Minister of Finance?

That is so. (Laughter.)

The motion was adopted.

on sub-section (e), “subject to the authority of Parliament the pay and allowances of the force [and the stoppages to be made there-from],” moved the deletion of the words “subject to the authority of Parliament,” and the addition at the end of the clause, “provided that no regulation made under paragraph (e) of this section shall, so far as it alters the rates of pay and allowances to any member of the force, come into operation unless such rates have been approved by Parliament in the Estimates of Expenditure presented thereto.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

suggested to add at the end of the clause: “All regulations shall be of force and effect, unless and until during the session in which it has been laid on the tables of both Houses of Parliament, as provided by law, either House has by resolution, disapproved of the terms of the same.” He said that a similar proviso was included in the Land Bank Bill, and the Minister might well accept it in this Bill. The effect of his amendment was that all regulations remained in force, unless either House by resolution decided otherwise.

said he was sorry that he was unable to accept the proviso. The hon. member for Von Brandis would see that his proviso said “unless either House of Parliament.” Well, that would entitle the Senate, for instance, to do something which it was not entitled to do.

said that in order to get over the difficulty, he would move to delete “of either House” for the purpose of inserting “both Houses”

On a point of order, will hon. members be given an opportunity of discussing the regulations?

There is no point of order in that.

On clause 12, Proceedings in case of alleged misconduct of officers.

put the proviso at the end of sub-section (2).

moved, as an amendment to this amendment, in line 18, to omit “near” and to substitute “nearly,” in line 19, before “Court,” to insert “magistrate’s,” and after “court” to omit “of Justice.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 14,

put the new clause.

moved, as an amendment, in line 41, after “all” to insert “trials and”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to.

In clause 18,

moved in line 12, after “reason” to insert “and in like manner.”

seconded.

moved in line 9, after “who is,” to insert “found.”

seconded.

These amendments were agreed to.

Clause 19,

put the amendments.

moved, as an amendment to the amendment, in line 25, after “article” to omit “or,” and to substitute “of”; in lines 26 and 29, to omit “such” and to substitute “the”; in line 30, to omit “such article” and to substitute “of the things aforesaid which is”; in line 31, to omit “and save as aforesaid” and to substitute “Every commencement of”; and in line 32, after “shall” to insert “if contrary to the provisions of this section.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 6, viz.: 7. Every member of the force first appointed to any post therein after the date of coming into force of this Act shall, until the passing of legislation regulating the granting of pensions, grants and gratuities, obtain such rights (if any) in that behalf as would have accrued to him in the Province in which he was or might be so appointed as it this Act had not been passed: Provided that upon the passing of such legislation, such members shall be therein protected as if they fell within the provisions of section 4 hereof, which section shall, mutatis mutandis, be taken to apply to such members.

seconded.

said the point was that when the Pension Act was passed, the rights of these men would be protected.

said the hon. member wanted to give pension rights to men who did not possess them at present. Another point was that if this was inserted the authority of the Governor-General would have to be obtained. In the third place, it was contrary to the spirit which was for the establishment, organisation, and control of a police force

The amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end of clause 9: “Provided further that such regulation shall be of force and effect unless and until during the session in which it has been laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament as provided by law, either House has by resolution disapproved of the terms of the same.”

seconded.

moved, as an amendment, to omit “either House has,” and to substitute “both Houses have.”

seconded.

These amendments were negatived.

moved in clause 12 to delete all the words from “the” in line 8, to “proceedings” in line 10, for the purpose of inserting the words “he may request the Governor-General to” and further to delete all the words from “Governor-General” for the purpose of inserting the words “shall take action in accordance with such report.”

seconded.

said that the amendment would render the clause nugatory. Supposing a man did not want such a trial.

said he was sorry he could not support the amendment, though he thought his hon. friend had moved it in the best interests of the force. Actual experience showed that this was against the best interests of discipline.

pointed out that the Governor-General “may” and not “shall” order a trial.

said that the amendment was not, he was sure, in the interests of the force.

The amendments were negatived.

It was agreed that the Bill as amended be adopted.

A verbel amendment in Clause 27 was agreed to.

said that under sub-section (c) of the new clause it was proposed to advance money to farmers holding land under agreement of purchase from the Crown, or holding land under lease from the Crown with an unexpired period of ten years or more. How, he asked, was that going to affect clause 24, in which an advance was made for 25 or 30 years?

said that when they came to the other clause the necessary amendment, he expected, would be made. He hoped the hon. member would help him through with that.

said that the new clause did not provide for advances for dipping tanks and dividing fences, as provided for by old sub-section (3).

said that no specific provision was made, but a general provision was made at the end of the new clause.

said that no help was to be given by the bank to the very class which really needed a helping hand, viz., the poor whites. He was glad that the Government had, in connection with the Land Settlement Bill, done something to help that class, but he hoped they would go further and help them under the present Bill. He was going to withdraw his amendment, but he hoped the Government would give the question earnest consideration. It was not possible to help them under the Land Bank Bill, though it could be done under the Crown Lands Settlement Bill or by means of labour colonies, and by increasing the wages of those employed on the railways.

said the hon. member should confine his remarks to the clause under consideration.

concluded by saying that 3s. 6d. per day on the railways would not help them very much.

said he would like to task how those men would fare who were previously assisted under the Free State Act? He supported the previous speaker.

said the hon. member for Fauresmith was not justified in withdrawing his amendment.

said they would not be doing their duty it they did not try to do something for the poor whites. They must assist the men who could not assist themselves, and the present Bill afforded a good opportunity.

appealed to the Government not to take away the rights possessed by the people of the Free State If the amendment of Mr. Wilcocks was not adopted a great deal of dissatisfaction would be aroused in the Free State. He hoped, therefore, that it would be accepted.

said it was more necessary to help the man who had no property than the man who was able to obtain advances from private banks. They ought to give the poor man a chance to show what he could do. He had himself made a fresh start with money lent on personal security, and he trusted the amendment would be agreed to.

did not agree with the whole responsibility in matters of this kind being thrown on the shoulders of the Government, and the House should have some say in regard to the question of regulations. He urged the hon. member for Fauresmith to amend his motion so that security should be given by two landed proprietors. It was not advisable to leave the whole question in the hands of the Government, as the Government then might make the whole question impossible. It was not a question of promissory notes or guarantees, but of regulations. The amendment ought not to be accepted.

strongly supported the amendment, and contended that there were many far more dangerous principles contained in the Bill. He hoped the Minister would agree to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Fauresmith.

said the hon. member for Fauresmith would do well to withdraw his amendment, as it was opposed to the fundamental principles of the measure now before the House. As it was the Bill was quite intricate enough, and if this new principle were adopted it would mean altering the whole meaning of the measure. A great deal of difficulty in regard to administrative matters would be caused, and the whole Bill would be endangered. If the bank could lend money on ordinary note of hand, it would become a banking institution of the usual kind, and that was not the intention. The amendment would shake the very foundations of the measure. The provision was very little acted on in the Free State, which could not therefore be taken as a precedent. As regarded the suggestion that only landed proprietors should be accepted as security, he wished to say that that would not work either. Landed proprietors who stood security today might go and mortgage their land up to the hilt to-morrow, and what would be the value of the security then? Then he had been asked: “What about the poor man?” Well, the poor man would be helped by the Crown Lands Settlement Bill. (Hear, hear.)

asked what would be the position of those Free Staters who had already borrowed money on promissory notes?

said that provision was made in this Bill to take over the existing Land Banks.

The amendment of Mr. Vosloo was negatived.

Mr. Merriman and Mr. Clayton withdrew their amendments.

Mr. Wilcocks desired to withdraw his amendment also, but objection being raised, it was put and negatived.

The old clause was then negatived.

New clause 18,

moved that the following be a new clause 18, viz.: “18. Subject to the provisions in this Act specifically prescribed, the business of the bank shall be: (a) to advance money to farmers on mortgage of land within the Union; (b) to advance money to, and to guarantee the performance of contracts by, co-operative societies; (c) to advance money to farmers holding land under agreement of purchase from the Crown, or holding land from the Crown under a lease the unexpired period whereof is ten years or more; and generally to make all such advances and do all such acts as the bank may, by this Act or any other law, be authorised to make or do.”

said the new clause had evidently been framed to meet the case of Natal, where land was held on 99 years’ lease from the Crown, but in the Cape there were some leases of only five or ten years’ duration. He moved as an amendment the insertion after “money” in sub-section (c) of the words “as prescribed in sub-sections 3 and 4 of section 23.”

said that he had no objection to the amendment.

and Mr. KUHN (Prieska),

said the terms and conditions under which advances could be made to settlers were dealt with in clause 23.

moved to delete the following from sub-section (b), “and to guarantee the performance of contracts by.” He thought it was not the business of the Government to back up people who could not stand on their own legs, and interfere with the business of other people.

explained that the omission of the words would not make the slightest difference. Clause 29 had been passed. This section merely anticipated the working of the bank. The clause where the alteration should have been made to be effective had been passed.

said he thought this clause was the point of attack. He would renew the attack when clause 29 came before the House again.

suggested that hon. members should content themselves now by simply protesting, and on the third reading go fully into clause 29. He regretted that the clause had been passed. They would simply be wasting time to discuss the matter now. They Should simply protest against this dangerous practice.

asked whether it would not be advisable to drop the words. He thought this was the proper time to delete these words.

said he thought it was too late to say now that they would not have any further co-operation. They should profit, he thought, by the lessons of the past. If they could bring the consumer and the producer together, let them do so, and he thought that this clause would enable them to attain this object.

said that his hon. friend had not got the faintest glimmering of what was meant by the clause. It was to help people to sell something they had not got. It was gambling in futures, and if there was one form of gambling that ruined more people it was gambling in grain.

said he thought there was a needless amount of alarm about giving power to the bank to make advances. The right hon. gentleman had referred to the case of a co-operative society, whose contract was guaranteed by the Land Bank in the Transvaal. In the committee upstairs, evidence was taken from the gentleman who was in charge of the Land Bank there, and he stated quite candidly and frankly that in the early days of the operations of the bank in the Transvaal, before co-operative societies or the bank itself probably knew how these things ought to be regulated, a certain amount of looseness existed and, owing to this looseness, this unfortunate speculation in grain took place, but clear evidence was placed before the committee to the effect that, with a system of close inspectorship and close control, that kind of business could be effectively checked and effectively controlled. (Hear, hear.) He entirely agreed with the right hon. gentleman that it was a most dangerous thing, and that it might lead to an enormous amount of loss. The whole thing was whether their bank directors, or bank manager, or bank inspectors would do their duty properly. He did not think there was any more risk in making advances in things of this kind than in any other bank operations. (Hear, hear.) Under the Bill very wide powers were conferred on the bank to inspect. So soon as the inspectors found that a particular co-operative society was going in for this kind of bad business referred to by the right hon. gentleman, viz., for gambling in grain, they would report it to the bank, and the bank would at once call up their bond.

said that the hon. gentleman spoke as if this were an advance. How could they withdraw it?

You withdraw the guarantee.

You cannot withdraw your guarantee, because the co-operative society may have entered into an undertaking, and the guarantors may have entered into an undertaking also. Clause 29 was simply an embellishment of the principle they were now debating. Originally he moved that the amount be limited, and the Government was not prepared to accept that, and he was therefore entirely opposed to the principle.

referred to a clause in the contracts of farmers in his part of the country. In these contracts it was laid down that these people could not mortgage the property, which he held was a serious handicap to them. He asked for information.

replied that this matter could not be considered in the Bill before the House, but should be dealt with in a special measure.

said that the hon. member for Barberton had stated in his remarks that if the officers of the bank carried out their duties properly, there would be very little risk indeed. But by the time the officers found out these contracts had been entered into, the risk and liabilities had been taken. Under clause 29, the Central Board guaranteed the performance of any contract by any person or society. Where was the security under that?

That is a mortgage bond.

It seems to me that this clause is going far beyond what the committee realise.

said that he would like to explain the procedure of the co-operative societies. They first of all inquired from their members how many mealies they would have. They did not buy any mealies. Then they entered into contracts with the different mines and for export to Europe of those mealies. They borrowed money to put those mealies into the stores, on which they got about 4s. or 5s. advance to the farmer, and they guaranteed to the companies for the delivery of those mealies. If they were going to knock out this clause, they would stop the co-operative societies from doing this particular business.

said he had great sympathy with the views of the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Durban, Berea, but he found, from what took place upstairs, that there had been in the past a great deal of looseness in connection with this matter, but they were assured that the law in regard to co-operative societies was being strictly enforced. In the past the societies had been buying mealies from outside. Now the bank would not allow any co-operative society to purchase grain from outside its own membership. Having assisted these societies, he did not see how they were going to get out of guaranteeing their contracts, of course on perfectly legitimate lines.

said that this just showed how difficult it was to legislate for a particular set of circumstances. They were asked under this clause to guarantee co-operative societies in any of their contracts. He would like to know what guarantee they had that the Land Bank, well managed as it may be to-day, would be always well managed. It was no use locking the stable door after the steed had gone.

said he did not see how this section gave power to the bank to make this guarantee. The aspect of the matter which appealed to him was whether this procedure was fair to the ordinary merchant. He recalled the dissatisfaction which was shown by merchants in the Transvaal when this question was formerly under discussion. They said that the co-operative societies were being guaranteed by the Government, and were enabled to compete with them on terms that were not fair.

said the clause as it stood was extremely loose, especially taken in conjunction with clause 29. The other evening he tried to get the Minister to do something to tighten up the clause. The bank must be satisfied that people receiving a guarantee were able to produce the articles.

asked the Minister to withdraw this clause “B” because it was absolutely wrong in principle. If a man got a contract he did not want to go to the bank to guarantee it, he went to one of his friends. He had been upon one of the Co-operative Wineries Committees and they had found that there was no money to meet the guarantees. The Government were not going to sell up a farmer’s goods because he belonged to a co-operative society which was unable to meet its obligations.

Mr. Henderson’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. J. W. Jagger’s amendment was agreed to.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 23,

said as the bank was allowed to make advances for 25 or 30 years, it would never do to make advances upon the security mentioned here He moved, as an addition to the new sub-section (6), moved by Mr. Clayton, to add at the end of sub-section (6)“And anything to the contrary not with-standing contained in section 24 any such advance as is referred to in sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section shall, together with the interest thereon, be repaid within any period not exceeding five years and upon such terms as may be determined by the Board.”

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

The amended clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Monday.

moved that the following be a Third Schedule, viz.: “Third Schedule. (1) Each owner who is a party to the dispute may serve on the other owner a notice in writing stating that he desires the matter in dispute to be determined by a Board appointed in accordance with and having the powers set out in this schedule. (2) The Board shall consist of three members appointed as in this schedule provided, unless the two owners mutually agree that one person shall determine the matter and further agree as to who that one person shall be. That person shall have all the powers by this schedule conferred upon the Board. (3) In default of such agreement each such owner shall, within fourteen days after the date of the notice aforesaid, nominate one person as a member of the Board, and shall transmit to the other owner the name and address of the person so nominated. (4) If after the expiry of the said period of fourteen days either owner has made default in complying with paragraph (3), the other owner may request—(a) the Magistrate of the district in which the two holdings are situate; or if the holdings are situate in different districts, (b) the Magistrate whose seat of Magistracy is nearest to the place which would be the central point of the proposed dividing fence, to appoint forthwith a member of the Board to act in place of the person who should have been appointed by the defaulting owner. The said Magistrate shall forthwith comply with that request. (5) Notice of appointment shall forthwith be transmitted by the appointing owner or appointing Magistrate (as the case may be) to each member appointed as aforesaid, and the two members so appointed shall, within fourteen days after the date of such notice of appointment, nominate a third person to be a member of the Board. (6) If at the expiry of the last-mentioned period of fourteen days the said two members have made default in agreeing upon a third member, the Magistrate aforesaid shall, at the request of either owner, appoint a third member. Notice of the appointment shall forthwith be transmitted to the third member by one or other of the appointing owners or by the appointing Magistrate (as the case may be). (7) The Board shall proceed to determine the matter in dispute as soon as possible after the third member has received his notice of appointment. (8) The third member shall be chairman of the Board and shall summon all meetings of the Board. (9) The Board shall have power to summon and hear witnesses, to administer oaths to witnesses, to call for the production of papers and documents, and to enter upon and inspect either holding or any adjacent holding for the purpose of determining the matter in dispute. (10) The decision of the majority of the Board shall be the decision of the Board, and shall be binding upon both owners, (11) The Board shall have power to award to either owner as against the other owner the costs of and incidental to the determination of the matter, including the reasonable remuneration of and expenditure by the Board, not exceeding one pound per day for each member for such remuneration and expenditure. (12) Any decision of the Board, including any decision as to costs, may be enforced in the same manner and by the same persons as a judgment or order of the Magistrate’s Court of the district is enforced. (13) For the purposes of carrying out any of the powers of the Board and for the purpose also of allowances to witnesses, the law relating to Magistrates’ Courts in force in the Province where the holdings are situate shall, save where other special provision is made in this schedule, mutatis mutandis apply. (14) Any costs awarded by the Board may be taxed on the request of the owner against whom the award was made, by the clerk of the magistrate’s court of the district, in accordance with the law in force therein, relating to magistrates’ courts.”

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Wednesday.

said that the Bill now before the House had in its general principles been before the House last session. Unfortunately, however, owing to a good deal of opposition to the proposed pension basis, that Bill had not gone through then. In other respects, the measure now before the House was only a repetition of the one they had last session. This measure, in the first place, dealt with salaries, and, in the second place, with pensions. It dealt with the salaries of judges appointed since Union, and with the salaries of judges who might be appointed in future. Judges already appointed would keep the salaries and pensions under which they were appointed; judges appointed since Union would also keep the salaries and pensions allotted to them at the time of their appointment, and would be entitled to the pensions then prevailing in the several Provinces. Then in the third place, the measure dealt with judges who might be appointed in the future. The salaries in the various Provinces at present were not by any means uniform. In the Transvaal the judge-president received £3,250, and ordinary judges £3,000, whilst in the Cape the figures were £2,750 and £2,250 respectively. It could not go on like that any longer. Vacancies occurred from time to time in the judicial staff which had to be filled, and the first and main object of this measure was to create uniformity, and the question was what should be laid down consistent with the circumstances of the country as a fair salary, such as would make the judgeship attractive to the leading men of the Bar. It would be unfair to pay the judges in the Cape the same salary as those up-country, as their expenses were much greater in Pretoria or Bloemfontein. In jail other salary proposals they had agreed to the principle to pay a certain pensionable salary at the coast, but certain allowances were made to the people up-country. Judges at Pretoria would therefore receive an allowance of £250 per annum, and at Bloemfontein £200 per annum. This question of pensions last year had caused all the trouble, but to-day he still felt that the pension was the great attraction to capable advocates to induce them to accept a judgeship. The amount he proposed now was much lower than that he had proposed last year, and he trusted no objections would be taken to his new proposals. He still did not think that his proposals last year were too high.

Hear, hear.

I am glad to hear the hon. member say that, because with the exception of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, none of the hon. members opposite supported me last year. I then met with such opposition that I thought it advisable to meet hon. members. I repeat that we must not make it possible by making even more reductions to find it impossible to get good judges. Hon. members must not forget that as a rule judges do not draw the pensions until a high age. Proceeding, the Minister gave the following scale of pensions laid down in the Bill: Chief Justice of South Africa, £1,300 per year; Judges of the Appeal Court, £1,200 per year; Judge-Presidents, £1,100 per year; Judges of the High Court, £1,000 per year. He considered these pensions were as low as they possibly could make them. (Hear, hear.) Another matter the Bill provided for was the conditions under which the pensions could be drawn, because hon. members must not think that a judge could resign at any time and draw his pension. The Bill laid it down that a judge could draw his pension when he had been on the bench for ten years and had reached the age of 65 years. In the case of a judge who owing to bodily infirmity retired before he had served ten years and before his 65th year, the Governor-General could in his discretion decide how much pension he would be allowed to draw within the limits mentioned. He (the Minister of Justice) thought the hon. member for Harbour was going to attack him now because he (Sir Henry Juta) considered pensions too low. He must admit that, he felt much for that, but they should not forget that last year the House had been practically unanimous in condemning higher proposals—when they had considered him too liberal. He hoped hon. members would agree that these pensions were as liberal as possible and would give the measure a speedy passage.

said the question of judges’ salaries and pensions was one that did not often come before the notice of the House. If that were otherwise a good many of the things that he had to say would not be necessary. It was not a question that was likely to be brought up in the House again for some time to come and consequently what he had to say applied not only to the present, but also to the future. What he was going to say he would say with very deep feeling. The House seemed to consider that the administration of justice in this country was a matter of small moment. (HON. MEMBERS; No! No!) “I say, yes!” continued the speaker; money was spent here and there; there was not the least hesitation in spending money on the development of agriculture and such matters, but not sufficient regard was paid to the administration of justice, and to the changes that were coming over this country during the present, as compared with past years. They had been very fortunate in this country in its history, on the whole, with regard to the men they had had as judges of the country (Cheers.) They had reason to feel very proud of them, of their purity, high standing, the learning, the integrity, and the uprightness which the Bench had always displayed in the administration of justice. (Cheers.) It had been a curious thing that so many of the men who had gone on the Bench in this country were young. There were various causes for that. If they would look back they would find that the original salaries and pensions that were given to judges in former years if they took the scale of living were very much more generous than the proposed allowance in the hon. Minister’s Bill. Many of the men went on the Bench at a time when the salary equalled that of a Minister. The reasons which took such men on the Bench were obvious. They all knew that if they wanted to get a strong Bench they must have a strong Bar. That might not be quite so obvious to many members of the House as it was to any who had anything to do with the practice of the law. To get the best men, who were in the very prime of their life and vigour they must not hold out the inducement that they should not want to go on the Bench until they were beginning to feel tired, until they were beginning to feel that the work at the Bar was becoming too hard and wearisome, and they could look forward to the leisure of the Bench. That was not desirable at all. It would be a most undesirable thing that men should only be induced to go to the Bench when they were beginning to feel tired of any other occupation in life; too tired to take interest in politics or their profession, and were looking forward to some less arduous work on the Bench. It was not a good thing that they should have men beginning to feel like that before they went on the Bench. If they wanted men to go on the Bench in their full vigour of life and interest they must hold out some proportionate interest.

In order to induce men to give up the interests of life they must offer them some proportionate inducement. Instead of that, what did the House propose to do? Everybody knew that the scale of living had altered. They knew the high standard that had been set. If they wanted to get good men to go on the Bench they must induce them to go there. Then there was another point which was also a very serious point, and which was overlooked last session. It was clearly a mistake when they had good men on the Bench to keep them there until they were past their proper vigour and mental strength. But in order to do that, the House must offer them some good inducement to leave the Bench. A Judge was going to remain on the Bench as long as he could possibly remain on the Bench, and no Judge could be removed from the Bench without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. He was speaking of the future; men were not going on the Bench so young as they did in past years. Force of circumstances would keep them on the Bench, and they would stay there as long as they could. What was the inducement to men to come off the Bench? It would be almost ludicrous, were it not so serious a matter. He might point out that at the present time there were very few Judges drawing pensions. They had a big pension list, but he did not think there was one Judge in the Cape Province who was drawing a pension.

One.

That was not a retirement under the ordinary law of pension rights. That was a case that was specially dealt with. There is no Judge in the Cape Province drawing a pension at the present moment, and those who did draw pensions apparently did not enjoy them very long. Continuing, he said that in the Free State there were very few, in the Transvaal there were very few, and in Natal, of course, the appointments were made just before Union came into being. What was proposed here? The unfortunate man who went on the Bench could not look at a pension until he was 65 years of age. He did not know why the alteration had been made.

The thing was a farce. It was not practicable. They would not get any man to dream of it. The great inducement in the past for men to leave the Bar and occupy a place on the Bench was the fact that they were able to look forward to a pension. He asked what man was going to look forward to a pension when he could not be granted one until he reached the age of 65 years? And what was he going to get? He was going to be granted the sum of £1,000. It was inevitable in the future that their Judges would sit on the Bench and draw their £2,250 or £2,500 as long as they possibly could. And then a man could not expect to enjoy the pension when he got it for more than two or three years. Why should he give up £2,250 or £2,500 for £1,000? He said that there must be a proper Act and proper pensions, firstly to induce men to go on the Bench, and then to induce them to leave. He knew that these were the views of the Minister, and he (the speaker) was sorry he did not have the courage to place those views on paper and stand the racket of criticism in that House. The point was that this House could diminish, but could not increase an amount. The circumstances of the country had changed from what they were thirty or forty years ago. They had still to get their judges from the Bar, and if they wanted to keep a judiciary in the state it should, they must get the best men they could from the Bar. If they could not do that, then they could not look forward to the future with that confidence as they had been able to look upon the past with satisfaction—that they had judges of which any country might be proud. There were many points which one could not touch upon in that House, and which would have to be left to the good sense and the common-sense of hon. members in that House; but they would never get their judiciary in the position it had been, and was, unless they made it worth the while of the best men of the Bar to come forward. It might sound curious, but they must first get their men on the Bench, and then get them off. (Laughter.) That was the true position. He strongly wished to impress these matters on hon. members, who seemed to think that any pension was good enough for a judge. Fortunately they might be able to reduce the age limit, though he did not know whether that would not be construed as meaning an increase of expenditure. The great pity of it was that the Minister did not keep the higher amount, which this House could have reduced, in its wisdom, if it had thought fit, whereas, as it now stood, whatever their opinion might be, they could not alter the amount. It was in the best interests of the administration of justice—and he said this was a matter which did not affect one an iota—and it was highly desirable that they should make the judges’ salaries more generous than they were, and make their pensions on a more liberal scale and at a lower age.

said he did not agree with the previous speaker, though he was pleased to see that the salaries of judges had been reduced from the excessive amount proposed last year. He paid a tribute to the Minister for his action in this matter, but, if he were to have his own way, he would reduce the number of judges by half. Times and circumstances had altered. In the past, before they had railways, judges had to travel by cart from one part to another. But to-day they could cover the distances by rail quickly and cheaply. He would even go further, and reduce the salaries now proposed by half, and would do the same in regard to pensions. The judges were not the only highly-placed officials in the country—there was also the Governor-General—the Administrators also with a number of figures behind their names. These people were supposed to do a good deal of entertaining, although no one saw much of it. (Laughter.) But Judges were not supposed to do so. On the contrary, they ought to keep to themselves. He considered a Judge could easily live at £1,000 per year. As the Chief Justice received £3,000 annually, he could save £2,000 out of it, so that in ten years he would have £20,000. A sheriff or court messenger in the Free State before the war was usually district field-cornet as well, and he only received £25 per year. Such men had lost everything during the war, and were now without a pension. As regarded the opinion that they should be so proud of their Bench, he did not wish to say much on this point, but he held that there had been judgments in this country which had surprised the whole world. Very few advocates were in a position to make £4,000 or £5,000 per year.

said he was sorry to find that in the very eloquent address that they had heard from the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, there was very little argument used except upon the amount of money that was to be paid to the Judges. He had yet to learn that persons took up these positions simply for the salaries attached to them. From what he understood the hon. member to say, this country was paying its Judges too little, but he would ask the House to consider that although the salaries might not be upon the best basis, yet when they came to compare them with other colonies, this country was paying its Judges very well indeed. In 1828 they paid the Chief Justice £2,500, and the Puisne Judges £1,500, and in comparing the salaries paid in other countries he found that in Victoria they paid the Chief Justice £3,000 and the Puisne Judges £2,500. In New Zealand the figures were: Chief Justice £2,000, and Puisne Judges £1,700. In Canada the figures were £2,000 and £1,800 respectively: in New South Wales, £3,000 and £2,000. Making a comparison he found that the average amount paid in salaries was, Chief Justices £2,300, and Puisne Judges £2,000, and so as far as salaries were concerned, they, in South Africa, had nothing to complain of. He was not so much opposed to the salaries as to the pensions. The next question raised was that they could not attract the best men to the Bench unless they paid very good salaries. That, in his opinion, had yet to be demonstrated. He was still of the belief that the sons of South Africa were prepared to serve their country on the Bench apart from the monetary consideration. If he understood the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, aright, a Judge was cut off from everything, but he always considered that when a Judge was raised to the Bench, he was also raised in the social scale and that his social position was very much greater than when he was a barrister. The next question that presented itself was the age of retirement. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had stated that a Judge should retire before he reached the age of 70 years. He would point out that near him were three members over 70, and there was one very gifted member opposite, of none of whom it could be said that their intellects were in any way impaired. So long as a man was not suffering from senile decay or any other ailment, it was best to have a man full of years and experience on the Bench. In Germany no man could be a Judge Who was under 35 years of age, and in Australia a man could not be a Judge unless he had ten years’ practice at the Bar. It was well to put into the Act of Parliament that no very young man could be a Judge. With regard to the question of retirement, he found that in Canada, the age limit was 80 years, in France it was 75, in Italy 75, in Austria 70, Spain 70, New Zealand 72. In Great Britain there was no retiring age, and he thought from the mistakes made by Judges who had stayed on too long, that there should be a limit fixed. He felt that if the House adopted the retiring age at 75 that would meet the case. Then with regard to the pensions, the hon. member for Cape Town. Harbour, characterised this pension of £1,000 as a mere pittance.

I never did.

regretted that he had misunderstood the hon. member. He said ludicrous, but he would point out that if this House had to pay the money down to an insurance company to secure annuity of £1,000 at age 65, they would have to pay £10,000. It was not the £1,000 cheque that they had to consider but the capitalised value, which was £10,000. What was a pension? The highest authority he had been able to consult defined a pension as something “to keep from penury and want those no longer fit, or disabled in the public service.” There was another question which ought to be dealt with. The Minister of Justice proposed to give £200 a year extra for Bloemfontein and £250 extra for Pretoria.

I am going to have that changed.

I had a chat with the Minister. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Brown said that with land settlement and irrigation schemes. Pretoria in five or six years should be as cheap to live in as any other part of the Union; otherwise, what was the use of making it the capital? He was glad to see that the Minister had done justice to the Eastern Districts Court by putting the judges there on the same level as the others. Returning to the question of pensions, Mr. Brown pointed out that Governors-General who had held the highest positions in the Empire received a pension of £1,000 a year. The country should deal liberally with the judges—not with the idea of keeping the Bench pure, because the judges’ honour and integrity would do that—but so that it could get the ablest members of the Bar to serve on the Bench. But no man under any circumstances, when he became disabled and unfit for service, should receive more than £1,000 a year.

said he did not think anybody who compared this Bill with the one introduced last session could reasonably complain that the time devoted to the discussion of the former measure was time wasted. The Bill now before the House was in every respect a marked improvement on the measure of last session. With the further consideration that he had been able to give to the matter the Minister had been able to place before the House proposals which were quite fair to the judges themselves and which did not throw an unnecessarily heavy burden on the taxpayers. The comparison of the Judges’ salaries with Ministers’ salaries by the hon. member for Gape Town, Harbour, was not altogether against the judges. The Judge-President of the Transvaal drew £2,750, and a puisne judge in Cape Town drew £2,250, as against a Minister’s salary of £3,000. But it should not be overlooked that there were no pensions for Ministers—(Ministerial cheers)—while there were for judges. A salary carrying pension rights was a very much more valuable asset than a salary which did not. The pension of the most junior judge on the South African Bench would be the same as that drawn by the most distinguished officer of the Imperial Government who had, devoted his life to the Government’s service and who retired as Governor-General of a first-class colony with a pension of only £1,000 a year.

What salary did he get?

What were his social responsibilities? (Ministerial cheers.) All that time a Governor has drawn in all parts of the world a comparatively small salary, and it had been impossible for him to save a single shilling, while it was possible, if the judges had enjoyed a great practice at the Bar prior to their appointment as Judges, to make some saving.

But, proceeded Mr. Currey, his grievance against the Bill was not so much with what it contained as with what it omitted, and he was sorry it contained no provision with regard to the age at which judges should retire. The Bill said a judge might retire at a certain age. But that should not be left to the judge himself. Parliament should decide at what age a judge—however eminent he might be—should retire. When it came to a question of drawing a full salary or a pension a man would never admit that his faculties were failing, and would never agree that it was in the best interests of the country that he should quit the Bench. He hoped that before the Bill left the House it would contain a provision to the effect that a judge shall retire at the age of 65. It was true that if that were the law to-day the country would have lost for some years the services of perhaps the most distinguished jurist who had ever sat on the Bench in South Africa—(cheers) but they could not legislate for individual cases of great genius, but for the body of judges in the mass. He wished to point out that if they accepted the suggestion of the hon. member for Three Rivers that a man should not be appointed to the Bench until he was 55 they would not have been able to appoint to the high office of judge the distinguished jurist who was the last Chief Justice of the Cape Colony. (Hear, hear.)

There was another point he would like to refer to. He was sorry the Bill had taken over part of section 9 of the Cape Act of 1896, in regard to the important question of the pension to be awarded to a judge who was compelled, before he had served ten years, to retire, through mental or bodily infirmity. What was the effect of the provision as the Bill stood? If a man were appointed to the Bench, and before he had served ten years was compelled, through mental or bodily infirmity, to retire, the amount of the pension to be awarded to him was one entirely for the Executive to determine. That was a condition of things that the Legislature, with all due respect to those who had passed the Cape Act, should accept. It was not fair to the Minister to place him in the position of saying, after a man had been a judge for four or five years, what pension was to be given to this judge. The judge may have been a politician in opposition to the Government of the day. Whatever happened then would have a political tinge. If the Minister were unduly generous, it would be said he had, been generous at the expense of the taxpayer; if he were ungenerous, he would be accused of being influenced by political differences. He thought that House should lay down, when it was dealing with pensions, once and for all, exactly what a judge should get as a pension when he retired. That matter should not be left in the hands of the Executive. The judge should know exactly what his position would be. Whether a man occupied the highest position on the Bench, or that of the humblest Civil Servant, the House, and not the Executive, should determine the pension. He had drafted an amendment for the committee stage of the Bill, which was an attempt to deal with this difficult question. He would propose that in the case of a man who was compelled, through mental or bodily infirmity, to retire before he had had ten years’ service, that he should receive for every year of actual service, if he was a junior judge, £100 a year, to £110 for a chief justice, £120 a year for a junior judge of the Court of Appeal, and £130 a year for a president of the Court of Appeal, with a minimum of £400 a year. He thought that was fair and he submitted that moderate proposal to the House. The hon. Minister would see at once what a difficult position he or his successors may be placed in, in being called upon at any moment to deal with a question of that sort. He hoped the matter would be taken out of the hands of the Executive.

said he welcomed the Bill, though he could not quite understand the hon. Minister’s complete change of front with regard to salaries and pensions. If the Bill passed there was going to be a serious discrepancy between the salaries of Judges and Ministers. He did not know any country except the United States where that state of affairs existed. In this country they were going to give Ministers higher salaries than they gave to Judges of Appeal, and much higher salaries than they gave to ordinary Judges. Mr. Jagger quoted the salaries of Ministers and Judges in Great Britain, Australia, and Canada, and said that here they were going to reverse the positions; they were going to pay the Judges a moderate salary compared with that paid to the Ministers. That showed up very badly, in his mind. There was no regulation laid down, so far as he was aware, regarding the leave of Judges, and he thought a clause should be drafted. The matter should not be left with the Executive, and he hoped the hon. Minister would give consideration to the suggestion.

referred to the attitude of the hon. member on the question as serio-comic when he suggested that the salaries of some of the Judges should go down by half. He would remind the hon. member that one of the best Judges in South Africa was to-day being over-driven very badly. There may be Judges who had not enough work, but he would say that so far as the Judges of the Cape were concerned they were very much over-worked. He would ask the hon. Minister to remember that.

proceeded to refer to the amount of work which was performed by the judges of the Cape Province when,

observed that that question was not before the House.

said that he would not pursue that subject any further. He said that he thought that the House should perhaps fix upon a hard and fast rule for the retirement of judges, pointing out that there were cases of judges who, after, say, the age of 65 years, were obviously capable of carrying out their duties. He suggested there should be some machinery, though it might lead to difficulties, whereby the Governor-General might be empowered to prolong the service of a judge for definite periods of a year at a time. Supposing they fixed the age at 65, they would be robbed of the services of one of the most brilliant men who had ever adorned a judicial bench. He would like hon. members to realise that when a judge was appointed he reached a high social standing which had to be maintained, and it was only fair that afterwards he should be granted such a pension as would enable him to maintain that dignity. It had been suggested that a pension was for the purpose of keeping a man from penury and want, if so £50 a year would be sufficient, but he would point out that they wanted to reward their judges for their past services. A pension was in the nature of a reward for past services. They were rather carried away by the idea that a person who was granted a pension did an injustice to South Africa when he went oversea. The point of that was that a man found his pension was not sufficient to allow him to maintain that style of living in South Africa, as was the case when he was in the service. In conclusion, he asked the Minister to consider the question of placing such matters as judges’ leave and the allocation of judges in the country on a firmer footing.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for committee stage on Monday next.

asked whether the Minister of Agriculture would not agree to postpone this matter, as the papers had just been laid on the table?

said he hoped the right hon. gentleman would not press his suggestion. He formally moved that the committee should concur in the purchase of the site.

said that he had made a rather hurried glance through the papers. In the first place, as far as he could understand, the purchase would have to remain. There was a contract among the papers made out in proper form and signed, he thought, on behalf of the Government, as well as the seller. He thought that was going further than instructions. What he wanted to draw attention to was this, that the great preponderating fact that seemed to have weighed with the Government in regard to this land was that it must be close to the railway line. Now, he utterly failed to see why they should have this particular farm with the trains passing it every day. He should have thought that it would be better for the students that they should not be disturbed in consequence of passing trains. Owing to the fact that they must have a farm so near to the line of railway, they had had to pay very dearly, because they were practically confined in their selection of land to these particular, farms. He found that there were three farms, at any rate, which were offered to the Government, situated about ten miles from the line, and which they could have bought at £3 5s. and £3. The report did not say anything about the quality of those farms, but simply put them on one side by reason of their distance from the line. Of course, there was a great disparity between those figures and £10 per morgen, which they had to pay for these farms. What he wanted to draw attention to was the dangerous position that the Government had got themselves into by this purchase. They had practically sent up the price of land in the central Free State to a fictitious value, because this price would be quoted all over the Free State, that the Government had paid £10 per morgen for some ground, and every farmer in the Free State would know about it. He noticed, too, that the Government were asking for powers for the purchase, laying-out and improvement of land for settlement purposes, £200,000; for the purchase of land for irrigation schemes, £100,000, so that they were asking altogether for £300,000. If they had got to pay for land at that price, how were the settlers going to make a living out of it? Not only had they the cost of the land, but they had also the cost of laying out, making roads, etc., to go on to the capital cost. They could not afford to pay prices like those for settlement purposes. He saw, according to one of the reports, that part of this land could be used for settlement purposes. They could never make it pay at £10 a morgen. He thought the Government had been compelled, through having limited their selection in this way, to pay a much higher price than they otherwise would have done. The result would be to bring out the cost of this institution at a very tall figure. The land wa3 going to cost them £20,000, and they had also got £40,000 down for buildings for the institution. That made £60,000 that they would have to spend on this place before a single student came in, and, on top of that, there would be the laying out of the land, etc. He was not opposed to the principle itself, but he might point out that they had already got four of these institutions in South Africa.

We have not got one in the Free State.

said that was so, but he thought in this case they had, simply and solely on account of confining their choice to land close to this line, paid more than they should have done.

said he was sorry that the Minister of Lands was engaged in another place, or he would have been able to give his hon. friend an explanation in regard to this matter. He (Mr. Malan) might state, however, that this was not only an agricultural school, but also an experimental station. (Hear, hear.) The principle of these five institutions, of which they were now getting the fifth, was that they should do three things—instruct the students, be places for experimental investigation, and be centres from which they could send out their experts for extension lectures. These experts would instruct the students and also assist in the experimental work carried on at the experimental stations. Now an experimental station of that kind must be in a particular spot where it was accessible to the public—(hear, hear)—and the price, if they wanted to select a spot of that kind, would undoubtedly go up. If they wanted a building site in St. George’s-street they had to pay a higher price than if they went to Loop-street.

The question is, do you require it?

We require a place that is accessible to the general public, and it must be as near as possible to Bloemfontein. Proceeding, he said that, apart from that, if it were nearer the line where the trains pass daily it was an object lesson in itself to the people of the country. As regarded the price, he might tell the hon. member that the people were not anxious to sell. They were rather anxious to get out of it: they were regretting that the property was sold to the Government. He might also mention that the owner of a neighbouring property had asked £12 10s. per morgen, and he had withdrawn his offer. They now had got better land, with no dispute about water, and with abutment on two rivers, for £10 per morgen. He thought, on the merits of the case, there could be no doubt that this was an excellent site. As regarded the expenditure, he might mention that they paid for the land and buildings at Grootfontein £59,000, although they were able to acquire the land from the military on exceptional terms. At Potchefstroom, before Responsible Government was granted, they laid out the place, and put up buildings which alone cost £150,000. (Hear, hear.) He thought if this place were acquired, and they laid out the place properly, it was a fairly large initial expenditure, but it was a work that went on, it was an asset to the State, and he believed that the Government could not have selected a better place, and the price was not excessive in the circumstances, and he therefore trusted that the motion would be passed. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to ask the Minister whether the Government were really committed to the purchase, or whether they were only committed provisionally, subject to the approval of the House. In regard to the price, he did not claim to have the local knowledge that some of their friends opposite had as to the value of land in the Free State. He was glad to hear what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District and one or two other members that £10 a morgen was not an excessive price for land in that district. He hoped that when the Estate Duty Bill became law, and when estates in that part of the country came in for payment, of estate duty, the valuations put on them would correspond with the price which the Government now had to pay. (Hear, hear.) This price, of course, would be a guide to the assessors when these estates tame in as to what was a reasonable valuation in that part of the country.

It seemed to him that this was the worst possible argument for a successful land settlement if the Government were starting out to purchase land at these inflated prices. Again, supposing the Land Bank had to sell land to recoup itself, he did not think they would get £10 a morgen; if they got £5, it would be nearer the mark. It seemed to him that the Government were going to pay an amount of money out of all proportion to the value of the land in the district. If they were going to buy land for land settlement or irrigation purposes, if they were going to pay for land on this basis, then they were going to pay for it out of all proportion to its value. He would like to know whether the Government were committed to this purchase?

said that from what he gathered he presumed that the contract was subject to the approval of Parliament. They could not buy land at that rate without coming to Parliament for its sanction. In his honest opinion, of all people who bought ground, the Government were the worst buyers. He had in his mind’s eye a certain farm that was valued at £16,000, and the Government hopped in and bought it for £47,000. He had not so far perused the voluminous pile of papers in connection with this Bill; but since that discussion had taken place he had had an opportunity of consulting one of the very best men in the Free State, a man well acquainted with the value of land in the district and with these farms, and he had told him that the top price was £5 a morgen. If it was true that the Government had accepted this purchase without any reservation, then it was rather humiliating, and all they would have to do was to swallow it; but if they had done this, and then asked Parliament to accept it, they had done a very wrong thing. (Hear, hear.)

said the position was this, that the Minister of Lands instructed the Administrator of the Free State to negotiate in connection with the purchase of a site. A certain gentleman, Mr. Quinn, who had been approached with a view to the purchase of his farm, withdrew from the negotiations, and a gentleman, Mr. Steyn, who had been a Government valuer in the Free State and was also a valuer to the Imperial Government, valued the farms in question. The Minister of Lands instructed the Administrator of the Free State to procure this land subject to the approval of Parliament, and the Administrator instructed Mr. Steyn to negotiate upon these farms. The Administrator reported that he had bought the farms, and had not stipulated for the purchase on approval, as the purchaser was not anxious to sell, and if there were any proviso he would not sell at all. Therefore, as far as the Administrator was concerned, the sale had been completed, but he had not the slightest doubt that if it was represented to Mr. Pretorius that Parliament was unwilling to agree to the purchase he would take them back.

Is it the same gentleman who valued land for the Milner settlement in the Free State?

said he wondered if Mr. Pretorius would get the same value from anyone else. The serious thing was that the Minister who had arranged the purchase of this property was in charge of the Land Settlement Bill. There could be no question that the land had been purchased at double its value. Although it was impossible for the House to repudiate this contract, he hoped the Government would bear in mind that the Minister of Lands had the power in connection with the Land Settlement scheme, and if he were going to purchase land on this basis, then the scheme was doomed to failure. (Hear, hear.)

said the statement that the highest price of land in the Free State was £5 per morgen was ridiculous. He himself had refused an offer of £5 for his land. In his district the value and price had increased considerably of late. The expropriation suggestion of the hon. member for Fordsburg was extremely unfair towards people in the Free State. If the Government wanted good ground, he held they must pay for it.

said he hoped they would not be led away entirely by the amount paid per morgen, because if they were to look at the Votes and Proceedings they would see that on Tuesday they were asked to agree in the purchase of these farms for the establishment of an agricultural school. He then asked the Prime Minister if he would allow the discussion to stand over to see if they were justified in expending an amount of £20,000 for this purchase. He now gathered that the purchase had been completed.

It was making a farce of the committee to ask it to consent to the purchase of a property which the Government, counting on its majority, had already purchased. Again the Government had broken the law. What authority had the Minister or any member of the Government to purchase this land without the sanction of Parliament?

I have already read out what happened.

said that the Minister had read out about some discussion that had taken place between the Administrator of the Free State and the Government with regard to the acquisition of this land, but this was not a provincial matter, for if it were the Administrator would have asked the Free State Provincial Council to do it. He could thoroughly understand the Government saying that in a matter of great public importance, which did not brook delay, they had to take the responsibility of spending money without Parliamentary sanction, but surely no one would raise that plea on a question of this sort It seemed useless, however, protesting against Government adopting absolutely unparliamentary procedure. If the Government were going to spend £20,000 without the authority of Parliament, before they knew where they were they might find themselves committed to an expenditure of a million or more without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter. He believed the House could refuse—and it would be a very good thing if, as a matter of protest, the House did refuse to sanction the purchase and leave the Minister responsible of it. (Opposition cheers.) The Minister of the Interior smiled, but he knew perfectly well that it was within the province of that House to refuse to vote that money, and in that case he (Sir Thomas) believed the Government would be responsible for the expenditure. (An HON. MEMBER: “They would make a profit out of it.”) If they did, he (Sir Thomas) would have no objection, but he did object to being asked to vote on a purchase which had taken place before the House had been asked to express its opinion. It seemed useless to make an impression on the Government, but if the House allowed that sort of thing to continue it could not exercise any control over the finances of the country. The Government had done an entirely illegal action, and it was impossible for them to justify it.

said the Government instructed Mr. Steyn to get options, and he obtained two—one from; Mr. Quinn and another from Mr. Pretorius. At the last moment the former withdrew his offer at £12 10s. a morgen, and the option over the other was running out. But the unconditional purchase was a mistake—let them admit that at once. The Administrator of the Free State, who was asked to negotiate the sale, wrote on May 31 last: “You will note that in the written instructions I omitted to state that the purchase should be subject to Parliament voting the money for it, and it will be due to this oversight on my part should any trouble arise.”

Read the letter to the Administrator giving that instruction.

He was here during the Conference, and he had his instructions verbally from the Minister of Lands. The Administrator’s letter proceeds: “As mentioned in my wire, I saw Mr. Steyn this morning, and he informed me that he had bought the farm and did not stipulate that the purchase was to be provisional, as Mr. Pretorius was not at all anxious to sell; it was practically the last day on which Government had the action.” If we had not closed on that day, or the following day, we should have lost the property. “He was afraid that if we tried to introduce any proviso they would not be inclined to sell at all.” I give the House the assurance that from all the information we have got that if the property is not taken by Government the people will readily cancel the sale.

said they would have thought that any business-like Government entering into negotiations of this sort would at least have put the instructions in writing, instead of which there was a friendly conversation with the Administrator of the Free State. The result was that the property was bought and the farce would be gone through of coming to the House to sanction the expenditure. (Opposition cheers.) A more unbusiness-like way of carrying out the work of the country it was impossible to conceive, and if they went on like that they would not know where they would be. Yes, he did know where they would be—in the cart.

Where’s that?

It is where my hon. friend found himself sitting yesterday, greatly to the edification of the House. (Loud laughter.) This is not a laughing matter—the other was a laughable matter. It has been acknowledged by the Government that they carry on their affairs in such an unbusiness like manner that they do not think it worth while to have a letter written as to the terms on which they want land purchased. But I dare say that their docile majority will back them up in an illegal transaction. (Opposition cheers.)

said that shortly before Parliament met Government entered into an agreement to purchase a property in the Peninsula—Westbrooke—for £125,000 on the condition that he as the then Minister of Finance made, that the purchase should be subject to the approval of Parliament, because he fully recognised that no purchase should be entered into—unless in the public interest it could not be delayed—without Parliamentary sanction. When this purchase of a farm came up for consideration several farms were offered to Government, and the members of the Government said they must pursue precisely the same policy as had been adopted in reference to the purchase of Westbrooke. All the members of the Government agreed to that policy, and that it would not be right to have a large expenditure of money without the approval of Parliament. That was the policy laid down by the Government in the instructions given to the gentleman carrying through the negotiations. He was sorry to learn that these instructions were not carried out, but he wanted to assure the committee that as far as he was concerned, and the members of the Government were concerned, that they made it perfectly clear that the purchase should be entirely conditional. Unfortunately those instructions were not carried out, and the agent of the Government deliberately departed from the instructions of the Government. When an explanation of that kind was given on behalf of the Government he thought the members of the Opposition should accept it. There was nothing improper or wrong, and there was never any intention to commit any improper thing, and it was always intended that the House should be consulted.

Did the Government knew this last Tuesday?

“The 13th May.”

said that last Tuesday was the 21st May. The House had no opportunity of knowing. There was no statement that the money had been already expended, and, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Barberton had said, the Minister of Education told the House that the Government gave no written instructions, but that they took advantage of the absence of the Administrator from Bloemfontein, when he was down here, and in a casual manner said, “You had better buy that property.” Whatever passed between them there was nothing on record to show. If there was a letter it had better be produced.

“It is not here.”

“It is not there.” Well, his hon. friend would admit that was not carrying out the admirable policy of the hon. member for Barberton. The agent acted without the responsibility of the Government and was himself responsible for the purchase. They were going to give a lesson and in future they would not be responsible for things of that sort.

said on the land settlement question he took advantage to point out that the spending of five millions in the purchase of land would have the effect of sending up the price of land in this country. With regard to the curious way in which this land was purchased, he understood from the Minister that the Government had an option on that land and they ought to have come to that House for sanction; but while he joined in the protest against the slipshod way of doing things, the explanation of the hon. member for Barberton was an explanation that very often accounted for a number of things done by ordinary business men. The Government should have come to the House and asked leave to purchase when they had an option on the land, and not waited until the option was just on the point of expiring.

said it was quite clear that the Government was not responsible and that the blame lay with the Administrator. But stones must be thrown. Hon. members should remember that this money had been voted by the old Free State Parliament, and the Free State was grateful to the Government for what it had done. Matters which were much worse had happened before Union. The Free State was entirely dependent upon agriculture, but apparently hon. members Wished to make political capital out of the whole affair.

said that his hon. friend who had last spoken had misunderstood the position. The objection was as to the method which the Government had adopted in making the transaction. Perhaps they would hear no more of similar mistakes in the future. But the Government had got a very good case in asking the committee to agree to the purchase. It had spoiled itself, in the first place, by its bungling, and it was further spoiled by Government supporters trying to support it by over-stating the case. It was spoiling a very good case to argue that the land was worth more than £10 a morgen, but the Government must carry out the pledge given by the late Free State Government. Firstly, the money was actually voted by the Free State Government, so that the Government was in honour bound to establish a school in the Free State. Secondly, the school should be established in Bloemfontein, or near there. The Government ought to have had power to appropriate, but they had to buy the best land available. They tried in several places, but they had not been able to get land at a lesser price, or better land, and they ultimately decided to get this land. Continuing, he said he was sorry that in the first instance the Government did not place the papers upon the table of the House. He did not take exception to the proposal on its merits; the only objection that he had to the proposal was that the Government did not carry out the matter in a business-like way.

said he understood that the property had been bought for a very useful, a very important, and a very deserving purpose. The Government had now come to Parliament, placed the documents on the table, and said, “Here is our case.” It was for the committee to approve or to disapprove of the action of the Government. The committee could reject the proposal if it liked, for the Government had stated that the person who had sold the farm was quite willing to take it back again. The hon. member for Bloemfontein tried to justify the action of the Government in purchasing the land on the one hand, while he tried to make political capital out of the affair on the other. He was really trying to square the circle.

That is not squaring the circle.

Surely that is trying to square the circle. Perhaps, it would he as well, seeing the seller is willing to take the property, if the Government cancelled the thing altogether. Now he would come to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, His hon. friend surprised him by the speech he had made a few minutes ago. His hon. friend had looked at the question from the constitutional standpoint, and had protested against the Government doing anything of the sort without Parliamentary sanction. But what did his hon. friend do about twelve or fifteen years ago? He purchased land at £5 a morgen in his (the speaker’s) district when the price of land was £2 a morgen.

Were you trying to buy?

said that further this was done without the sanction of Parliament. He did not even think it worth while to submit to the Parliament of the country. But he did more. The principle in the Cape Parliament was that Government land could not be let without the sanction of the House. What did his hon. friend do? He not only bought this land at £5 a morgen when land in that district was standing at £2 a morgen, but he let it without the sanction of Parliament, and it brought in something like £18 a year. (Ministerial laughter.) The land cost £5,000, and it brought in £18 a year. Continuing, he said his further point was that the land that was purchased by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort could not be used for any practical purpose. In this case the property was going to be of good. The railway ran past it, and there was an abundant supply of good water.

said that he objected to the Government spending the money of the taxpayer in this way. He did not know whether the land was worth the money, and he did not care. He realised that when Parliament was sitting the Government undertook the responsibility for anything of this sort, but he would point out that the House had now been sitting for three months, and the Government had not thought it worth while to bring the matter to the notice of the House. It was no use hon. members on the other side smiling about a grave matter of this sort. If this sort of thing was to continue then the Cabinet could not continue. South Africa would not stand this sort of thing for too long a period. (Ministerial laughter.)

said that in case any single member of that House had taken any notice of what had been said by the hon. gentleman on the other side (Mr. J. A. Vosloo), he would like to say that he never, on behalf of the Government, bought any land of any sort without having Parliamentary authority.

said he would like to know whether the purchase of this land was sanctioned by the Government as a collective body or the hon. the Minister from his own watertight compartment? Was the Minister sure that there was no middleman in the business? Was any commission or any part of the sum going to the person who arranged the sale or was the whole of this sum going to the owner of the farm? He pointed out that another agreement had been laid on the table of the House that day, which might have a far-reaching effect. Remembering what had happened in the case of the Dinizulu farm, he thought it was only right that they should obtain a full and clear explanation from the Government. Was Mr. Steyn paid a commission on the full amount or was he paid a salary? He would like these questions answered by some responsible member of the Government.

said he understood that instructions were given to the Administrator while he was down here.

Yes.

asked whether twenty-four hours’ grace was not allowed so that the sanction of the Government might be obtained.

No.

No option whatever for twenty-four hours?

said that the option which was obtained expired on the Monday. The Administrator telegraphed on the Monday that the option expired on that day, and that if that land were not taken the Government would not be able to get land at the same price. The Administrator had admitted that he gave verbal instructions to Steyn that the purchase was not to be concluded unless it was conditional upon Parliamentary sanction, but this was not put in writing Steyn, fearing that the owner would withdraw, accepted the offer unconditionally. They might blame him if they liked, but Steyn thought that he was acting in the best interests of the Government and the country. He had got positive information that if the farm were not accepted by the Government it would be taken back by the sellers.

said he was not moved by the latter part of the explanation, because they heard the same thing in connection with the purchase of the Dinizulu farm Then they found it was a mere figure of speech He did not object to the price of the farm he did not doubt the bona fides of the Government, but Steyn got a reply on the Saturday—

The option was running for three months.

The option expired on the Monday.

Yes.

Was the option obtained before the Administrator came down here?

It might have been a month.

said he did not want to make the Government responsible, but clearly what ought to be done now was to report progress to enable the Minister who was in charge of this department and the negotiations, to come and explain it—(hear, hear)—because they now heard of a three months’ option and a one month’s option. Even that he would give to the Minister. There was a time, after the Administrator had conveyed his instructions verbally to the agent, not to purchase but to get an option, and from the Saturday to the Monday the Administrator knew that he had this option, and he would not close until the Monday. Was it not worth wiring, knowing that the Administrator s instructions were given by the Ministry, to ask for Ministerial authority to complete this purchase? He did not do that, neither did the agent, who was in hourly contact, he supposed, with Bloemfontein. Why not? He (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) must say that the transaction did not look well. He was not impeaching the Government. The Government’s hands appeared to be perfectly clean.

Thank you; we are thankful for it.(A laugh.)

You have good reason to be, because you don’t often get that compliment. He went on to say that a speaker on the other side had tried to obscure the issue. This was not a question of no confidence in the Government. The Minister of Commerce had taken up the cudgels on behalf of the Government. He felt it to be due to him to say that he was not suspecting him; he did not see how he (the Minister of Commerce) came into the matter at all; neither was he suspecting any member of the Government. This transaction ought to be cleared up. The right thing to do was to discourage this kind of business, where an agent could go and buy property and then they could come to Parliament and bluff it through. Any amount of money could be made in this way, if they once made it clear that people could do that sort of thing. He would move to report progress.

asked the Minister of Education whether the Administrator, without any authority, after having received instructions only to obtain an option, then instructed the agent to close finally without instructions from the Government?

said that this was the third time he was explaining this point. It appeared from the papers.

Answer the question.

I really must refuse to answer the question to-night. (Hear, hear.) If hon. gentlemen will not listen, I cannot help it.

said it was obvious that the Minister of Education did not know much about this matter. He (Mr. Meyler) should like to know whether there was a middleman in this case.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

said he understood from the Minister that the Administrator was instructed to negotiate for an option. He went to Bloemfontein, and apparently gave instructions to one Jan Steyn. Now the Minister read out a telegram from the Administrator showing that although the Administrator had been given verbal instructions only to get an option, on Saturday, before the option expired, he definitely told the agent to foreclose. He wanted to know if that was correct? They now got a further complication that the Administrator, though definitely told to negotiate for an option, took upon himself the responsibility of telling the agent to foreclose, and now the Government was trying to put the blame on the agent. He wanted to know what had the Government done after discovering that somebody had exceeded their instructions?

said he thought the hon. member for Rouxville had misunderstood the feeling on this side of the House. He did not believe that there was a single member of the Opposition who would like to put an obstacle in the way of the Free State obtaining its agricultural school. He did not quite agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East. The matter had been bungled, but he did not blame the Government very much for that. What hat he did blame them for was because they did not consult the House earlier, and that, the other day, when the matter was brought forward, they did not make a clean breast of it, but endeavoured to carry the vote through without giving information.

said he would like to put a point-blank question to the Minister, namely, whether the agent had been paid his commission for the purchase of this farm, and whether anything had been deducted from him for exceeding his authority?

said that perhaps the Prime Minister would be able to enlighten them as to whether there was a middleman in the case. He should like them to have the Minister of Lands in the House, so that they could see if he could tell them anything more about it.

said he hoped the members on the other side would allow this vote to go through, because he did not think it was their intention to carry on the discussion merely for the purpose of obstruction. There had been irregularity, and the Government were prepared to acknowledge it. There had been a mistake made, and he asked what good purpose could be served by going on arguing the matter in this way? If the sale were repudiated and the owners had to take this property back, it simply meant that the Government would have to get another site. He knew it was, and had been, extremely difficult to get ground for the purpose that they had in view. He did not for a moment pretend that ground in the Bloemfontein district was worth £10 a morgen, but land for this special purpose, with contiguity to the line and the river, was extremely difficult to get. He was surprised, knowing the Pretorius family as he did, that they should be prepared to sell the land at all. It had been in their family for a long while, and there was a good deal of sentiment attached to it. He would put it to hon. members opposite that a mistake had been committed. The Government should admit the mistake, and he would beg hon. members to allow this motion to pass.

said that the: statement they had just heard was just what they wanted—a little more candour, a little more frankness. He went on to say that he had had a look at the papers, and he found that what was in his mind was perfectly correct.

According to the correspondence it seemed that the Administrator instructed Steyn to close the bargain. That was absolutely a flat contradiction of the story that had been given out that the agent had exceeded his authority. Here they had it stated that the Administrator had accepted the offer. It seemed to him that the Government were trying to shelter themselves behind a small man. The person to blame was the Administrator, who ought to have consulted the Government before he gave instructions to purchase the farms.

said that before they put the motion he would say to his friend the member for Ladybrand, who had asked why they should prolong the discussion and who had admitted that irregularities had been committed and that they would not occur again, that it was because of the criticism of the Opposition. There was another reason in prolonging the discussion, the member for Newlands, fully within his rights, asked what commission had been paid to Mr. Steyn. He had heard Mr. Steyn described as a large man, but he did not know if that were true or not. They had been told that the people who sold these farms were overcome by patriotic motives—at £10 per morgen, but they did not know what commission Mr. Steyn got. Did he get two commissions, one from the buyer and one from the seller? If he got 1 per cent he might quite as easily get 2½. (An HON. MEMBER: The seller ought to know.) He understood that the seller sold his land below value. If Steyn was acting for the Government surely the Government had the facts and would know what was paid him.

said if Steyn were acting for the Government he could not accept a commission. The shortest way would be to report progress and give the Minister time to answer the question.

said he understood Mr. Steyn acted as agent. The difficulty in this matter was that their experts had advised them to purchase Bishop’s Glen; but owing to the fact that they could not get that part of the farm they required, namely, the part along the river, and owing to the price asked, negotiations fell through. The farm of Pretorius was also offered, but at a lower price —£10 per morgen. The price was high, he admitted, but they had tried to get a number of farms; but in practically every case they had been faced with the same difficulty—the price was either very high or otherwise the farm was not in a suitable locality on the railway or without water. They had to have something good, because they required a sort of a show farm, where they could not only educate the children, but show the grown-up people what could be done. They could have got unsuitable ground to the west of Bloemfontein at £5 per morgen, but that was useless, and there was other ground near Bloemfontein which could not be bought for £20 per morgen. Of course, he agreed that settlers should not be placed on expensive ground like this, but for an agricultural school such ground was essential. (Hear, hear.) In the past, experimental farms in the Transvaal had been started in wrong localities, and this mistake should not be repeated. It would be an injustice to the Free State if this was not pressed. In conclusion, he pointed out that the Government had taken the right steps and were not to blame for the mistake in regard to the purchase. The instructions were quite clear, and he regretted they had not been carried out. The right hon. gentleman concluded by expressing the hope that the matter would now pass.

The motion was agreed to.

The motion was thereupon reported to the House, and leave given to bring up the report at the next sitting.

moved that the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

said he would have been glad if the late Minister of Finance had been dealing with this question, because the hon. member (Mr. Hull) had been good enough to handle him (Sir Edgar) rather severely the other day. He (Sir Edgar) had not taken that opportunity of questioning the Minister’s Estimates—it was the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). It was obviously no defence for the hon. member (Mr. Hull) to say that some of the Estimates placed before the Cape Parliament in 1904 turned out to be unfortunate. But the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was rather serious. It was not the Minister who was to blame, but the department which worked the figures out, and in this case the House was seriously misled. On March 22 the Minister of Finance told them that his total revenue Estimates were £17,033,000. To the end of February, for the eleven months, the actual revenue was £16,016,000, so it was estimated that the total March revenue would be £1,017,000. The actual revenue for March was £1,320,000—about £300,000 more than the Minister of Finance had estimated. The point was this: if the Estimates given by the Minister of Finance were to be absolutely correct, his revenue for March should have been £1,017,000. The average revenue for the whole of the eleven months of that year was £1,334,000. It was £300,000 a month more than the figures given for March; that was the important point. He did not understand why Parliament was told practically that the revenue for March was going to be £300,000 less than for the rest of the financial year. As far as they could see, there was no reason why the March average should not be the same as for the rest of the year. Parliament was misled to the extent of £300,000 in the Estimates placed before it, and the whole of the calculations were affected to that extent. There was not that care in the preparation of the Estimates that there should have been, and he hoped the new Minister of Finance would take advantage of the error into which his colleague had fallen, and would take care that Parliament was not again misled to that serious extent. It was a question of making calculations which, as far as one could see, there was no justification for whatever. It was impossible to understand how the figures which the Minister laid before them were arrived at. (Hear, hear.)

referred to the removal of the names of certain natives, Indians and others who are in the Government service from the numerical column. He wanted to know why the change had been made; why these people in the employ of the Government, who, last year, were in the numerical column, were not now in the numerical column? It was an absolutely ridiculous thing if the House were asked to say that because of the colour of a person’s skin he was not going to be in the numerical column. If there was a satisfactory reason he would be glad if the Minister would inform him of it. There was another matter which seemed to him to be even more important. Was the House supposed to endorse the scheme of grading of officers’ salaries put forward by the Government by voting the salaries down in the Estimates? Were they going to have a fight on every officer’s salary as they came to the different departments? Was it not right that this question should be settled before the House entered on the Estimates?

The motion was agreed to.

said he noticed in a footnote on the page “Public Works Department,” the sum of £8,500, and he would like the Minister of Public Works to explain the details, because in the estimates of that Department he could only find the sum of £3,000. He thought the employees of the Department, under this vote, had two masters: there was not only the public service but his Excellency the Governor. He thought the whole amount that was necessary for his Excellency’s establishment should be voted by the House and that it should be left to his Excellency to order for that establishment and everything connected with it, apart from the Public Works or any other department. He instanced the case of a person in the public service paid by the Public Works Department who was also in the service of his Excellency, where certain friction took place, and the Public Works Department have virtually dismissed the man. He mentioned that to point out that differences existed under the two-fold control.

Items under “Senate.”

drew attention to discrepancies regarding the salaries of the various officers of the House of Assembly and of the Senate, and he thought there was room for considerable inquiry into the matter by the Internal Arrangements Committee.

rose to point out that the matter did not come within the purview of the Internal Arrangements Committee.

drew the attention of the committee to the amounts which were paid the President of the Senate and Mr. Speaker. In the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, which was passed last year, it was stated in section 35 that these salaries should be presented by Parliament. That would seem to be a proper way of doing things, and he would like to hear of the intention of the Government.

pointed out that the Chief Messenger of the House of Assembly was paid £180, while the Chief Messenger of the Senate received £200. The work of the former was much more arduous than the duties of the latter.

said that he hoped, if the Minister did take notice of what was said, that he would not reduce the salaries that were already paid the officials of the House. The more one went down the scale the worse these salaries became. He proceeded to refer to the discrepancy between the salaries of the Chief Messenger of the House of Assembly and the Chief Messenger of the Senate, and drew attention to the amounts that were paid the messengers. Hon. members who were about the House for many hours every day knew the long hours that were put in by these messengers. It was bad enough on the other side, but it was worse in that House. He considered that the pay was not commensurate with the number of hours worked by these men. He would also draw attention to the fact that for the convenience of Senators the other part of the building was kept open on Saturday afternoons and he believed Sunday as well. Now, that entailed a great deal of extra work on the staff. Parliament House was for the purpose of transacting the business of the country and should not be used by hon. members of either House as a sort of club. He hoped that the practice of keeping open the other portion of the building on Saturday afternoons and Sundays would be stopped, for, he thought, it was only fair that the men who put in long hours while the Houses were sitting should at least be given Saturday afternoons and Sundays.

said he had received no answer to his question, and thought that he had been treated with gross discourtesy.

said he had not the slightest intention to offend. The fact was that at times it was very difficult to catch the point of the hon. member’s questions, which were really very involved. Replying to the hon. member for Maritzburg, North, the Minister said he supposed that in time the legislation referred to would be passed.

said that the question of the messengers’ salaries came up in the Internal Arrangements Committee, but they declined to allow them to discuss it. To his surprise, when they came to consult about the matter with the hon. member for Queenstown, they found that he, as a member of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, said they had re fused to deal with this question altogether. It seemed to the members of the Internal Arrangements Committee they were being deliberately muzzled. He would like to know from the Minister who was responsible for dealing with these salaries?

said he must say that he did not know. (A laugh.) He remembered last year the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders dealt with a number of salaries of officers in this House.

said that in the Upper House they had a special committee. The Upper House had increased in some cases the salaries of their officials. In that House (the Assembly) they had not increased the salaries of their officials, and there was no comparison between the amount of work done by their officials and the amount done in the other House. That was not fair.

said he did remember some conversation about this matter with some member of the Internal Arrangements Committee. He told him that he (Sir W. B. Berry) thought the proper remedy was to move that certain matters be referred to that committee by the House. The procedure in the old Cape House undoubtedly was that all questions of salary, from the Speaker down to the lowest messenger, were referred to the Committee on Internal Arrangements.

asked the Minister what course was to be taken with regard to these discrepancies in salaries? Were the officials of the House to come to the ground between two stools?

said he did not think the Internal Arrangements Committee were really to blame for not having been able to take this matter under their consideration. Hon. members knew how difficult it was for any private member to get a matter brought before this. House. He really thought that this matter ought to be dealt with. They ought to be allowed to move that this vote be not taken until they knew who was to deal with this question of salaries. If not, he would ask the Government to state what they were going to do in this matter?

said there was one very important reason why this vote should stand over, because they were asking the House deliberately to break an Act of Parliament. He referred to the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. There was an important principle involved in these powers and privileges. The important principle was this, that they did not want either the speaker’s or the President’s salary to be changed from year to year, and any change that might be desired would have to be sanctioned by Parliament. Under these circumstances he would move that the vote stand over because they were breaking section 35 of the Act.

said he did not want to interfere in this quarrel between the Internal Arrangements and Standing Orders Committees—(An HON. MEMBER: “It is not a quarrel”)—but his point was whether it was competent for either of these two bodies to increase expenditure at all.

asked the Chairman whether it was competent for the committee to deal with the salary of the President of the Senate?

said he believed it was quite competent for the committee to do so.

referred to the old practice of the Usher of the Black Rod having a free railway pass. The present “Black Rod ” had a railway pass until last June, but this had now been taken away. He was an official who had long and faithfully served the House, and he (Mr. Vosloo) thought this pass should be restored to him.

said there was an easy way to clear up the matter, and that was for the Minister to bring it forward. Then, did not the Pensions Committee regularly bring forward recommendations for increased expenditure?

said the Select Committee on Pensions was specially appointed to make recommendations as to expenditure. But the position was different with regard to the other committees.

said there was a little mystery over the matter. He took it that a committee could only deal with salaries at the specific request of the House.

said it appeared to him they had lost sight of the fact that if the Internal Arrangements Committee had had the matter under its consideration it would have gone into it and reported to the House. The messengers of the House had very long hours, and were rather underpaid. As the matter had never been considered, it should be allowed to stand over, or referred to the Internal Arrangements Committee.

said there was no dispute between the two committees, which simply desired to know where they stood in this matter. Some committee ought to have power to make recommendations in regard to salaries. Government should be asked to bring in a resolution as to which body should make these recommendations.

pointed out that this matter had been referred to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee during last session on the motion of the right hon. member for Victoria West, who had suggested that this matter should be dealt with by a “strong committee.” It, therefore, seemed to him that Parliament itself had laid it down who should deal with matters of this kind. (Hear, hear.)

said it appeared that neither committee was permitted to consider these salaries. Then the whole onus of dealing with the salaries rested with the Government, and in that event some particular Minister must be responsible. He asked if the scale laid down was an adequate wage?

said they could see clearly that the salary of the assistant messenger had been increased from £125 to £135, and there were other increases. Who recommended those increases? If they were by scale, who fixed the scale? (An HON. MEMBER: “Parliament!”) Then which committee? The matter ought to have been dealt with by the Internal Arrangements Committee, and not by the Standing Orders Committee.

said the matter was simple; if they wanted to deal with the question on its merits they should move in proper form, and the matter would be referred to some committee to be dealt with.

wanted to know who was going to put the matter right.

said there was no responsibility on the part of any individual Minister. The committees of that House and the Senate had made recommendations, and those recommendations were embodied in the figures before the House. If there were any disagreement hon. members should refer the figures back to some committee or other.

asked which committee the figures could be referred to?

Either committee.

Can it be done now?

No.

asked if he could move that vote 2 stand over?

Yes.

asked if the Government was going to continue the practice of fixing these salaries? Would the Government change the procedure next year?

said the matter; was important. Would the Minister give the committee a reply? Did the Minister intend to regulate the matter by an Act of Parliament? The Government could increase or reduce the salaries every year because there was no legislation on the subject.

said that either this or next session a Bill of the kind would be brought in, and so comply with the provisions of the Act of last year.

said that this was not the first time this matter had been brought to the notice of the Minister.

The motion that, the vote stand over was negatived.

moved to report progress. (VOICES: “No.”)

The motion was agreed to.

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