as Chairman, brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

In connection with the statement of amounts requiring to be voted as unauthorised expenditure, summarised on page 380 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report on the accounts for the period 30th May, 1910, to 31st March, 1911, the committee, upon investigation, were of opinion that certain items stated could be regarded as coming within the compass of the Appropriation Acts. The remainder of the expenditure shown as unauthorised on page 380 of the said report amounted to £142,150 7s. 4d., which the committee recommended for specific appropriation by Parliament.

gave notice that he would move for leave to introduce a Bill to apply a further sum for the purpose of meeting certain unauthorised expenditure.

Why does not Government do it?

The Governor-General’s consent will have to be given.

Papers relating to leases, sales, and grants of land (Nos. 69 to 73).

These were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

communicated the following message from the Senate: The Senate transmits to the House of Assembly the Bill “To consolidate and amend laws in force in the Union relating to the use of water of public streams, for domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes, and to provide facilities for the irrigation of land and use of water,” in which the Honourable the Senate has made certain amendments, which the Senate has transmitted to the House of Assembly with certain amendments in which the Senate requested the concurrence of the House of Assembly, and which Bill the House of Assembly has now returned to the Senate, concurring in certain amendments and requesting that the Senate do not insist on certain other amendments, and proposing certain amendments to the Senate amendments, in which last-named amendments the House of Assembly requests the concurrence of the Senate, as follows:

In clause 2, in the interpretation of term “riparian owner,” after the words “and shall,” to insert “for the purpose of denning such term where it occurs a second time in section 8,” in which the Senate now concurs, and

In clause 10, line 47, to omit “preclude” and to substitute “exclude” instead thereof, in which the Senate concurs.

Further, the Senate does not insist on the amendments in clauses 8, 9, 18, and 21, as requested by the House of Assembly, and now transmits a fair copy of the Bill passed by the Honourable the House of Assembly, and which has now also been passed by the Senate, and desires that the Honourable the House of Assembly will cause the same to be certified as correct, and will return it so certified to the Senate.

read a message returning the Bill so certified.

said that he wished to draw attention to a fact which had come under his notice, namely, that in the minutes of the Senate in speaking of the amendment made in section 2, it stated that the Senate did not agree with the House of Assembly, and later it stated that it concurred with the amendments made by the House of Assembly. Now, obviously one was wrong.

We take no cognisance of what takes place in the Senate. We are only concerned with their official messages which come to us We cannot take cognisance of any proceedings in the Senate: all we have before us is their official intimation. (Laughter.)

The message in reply was approved of.

said: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to call your attention to, and ask your ruling upon, a matter affecting the privileges of hon. members of this House. On Saturday, the 26th inst., sir, an article appeared in the “Cape Times” headed “Our Trusty and Well-Beloved.” (Laughter.) By implication, by inference, and by innuendo that article charges me, sir, with a very serious and very grave offence. The basis of that charge, sir, is a report of the “Cape Times” itself, a report which I have no hesitation in saying would disgrace any paper of all moral status at all. (Laughter.)

Has this reference to the matter about which the hon. member communicated to me?

Yes, sir.

I have looked into the matter, and I don’t think it is one which should take up the time of this House. I don’t think the matter is of such a nature that this House should take cognisance of it. It is not such a breach of privilege as is recognised by the House of Commons, and if the hon. member thinks he really has a grievance there is another course open to him, but this is not a matter arising out of this House or having to do with this House. I am fully cognisant of the matter, and I don’t think it would be right for this House to take up its time in discussing it. (Hear, hear.)

moved that the second reading be taken to-morrow (Tuesday).

May I ask the Minister in charge of the House, in the absence of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, whether the Government are really serious in giving notice of new Bills? (Hear, hear.)

We must fix the date of the second reading.

asked the Minister to give the House a week in which to consider the measure, which was most important.

May I ask if the Government are really serious in putting down this important measure when they know that the paper is extremely crowded, and before the House is asked to agree to the second reading tomorrow I would like to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to the business on the paper. The Prime Minister said the other day that he hoped to be able to make a definite statement to the House.

asked whether it was the intention of the Minister merely formally to move the second reading and to take the subsequent stages up next session.

said the Minister should give the House a little more time for the second reading. The Bill was of very great importance, and important amendments had been made to the Bill by the Senate.

said that during the recess he gave up three weeks to considering the measure, but it was no use going upon the notes he then made. The Bill had been altered and amended, and it would simply be wasting the time of the House if he discussed matters which might not now be in the Bill. He wanted time again to consider the Bill.

said that these Bills affected the whole of the Union, and it took four days for them to reach such an important centre as Durban, and three days to reach Pretoria and Johannesburg. The people in those centres were affected by this Bill, and they should receive some consideration.

said that he would move the second reading on Thursday.

Agreed to.

said the Prime Minister had asked him to state that he would make a statement to-morrow (Tuesday) as regarded the business which he thought should be taken during the remainder of the session.

moved to add at the end: “and provided further that every regulation made under any other paragraph shall be of force or effect unless and until during the session in which it has been laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament as provided by law either House has by resolution disapproved of the terms thereof.” He said there was no opportunity given Parliament to express an opinion on any regulation made under the Act. The regulations, affecting the police so vitally, should be reviewed by Parliament.

seconded.

said he was prepared to accept the amendment provided the words “both Houses have”be inserted in place of the words “either House has”. He also moved, in the last line, to omit “either House has,” and as a consequential amendment upon that amendment, in line 18 to omit all the words from “every such” down to “published” in line 20.

seconded.

said he could only allow consequential amendments.

said he thought the amendment was consequential.

Agreed to.

The amended amendment was agreed to.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

asked the Minister to consider the point of not allowing sub-inspectors to adjudicate in trials. He thought only officers above the rank of sub-inspector should be allowed to take part.

The motion was agreed to, and

The Bill read a third time.

said he hoped that the clause would be passed as it was printed. He objected to the amendment.

said he thought that hon. members should consider the matter very carefully.

suggested that the word “have” be inserted after “further”.

said he hoped that the Acting Minister of Finance would take the same view of the matter as his predecessor. He did not see why these transactions should escape stamp duties. They wanted the farmers to get the money cheaply, but a better way would be to reduce the interest or the charges for applications. How were they to interpret the words, “No stamp duty shall be payable”? How was a person to know that cheques or bills were exempt from duty or not? The whole purpose was vague. He had been in favour of removing all unnecessary charges, but he did not think it should be done in this way.

supported the amendment of the committee. The Land Bank Bill supplied loans to well-to-do landowners at a low interest, while other people could get no help from the bank. According to this Bill, the bank could only give up to 60 per cent. of the value of a farm on first mortgage, which meant that a farm would have to be worth £3,300 to entitle the owner to the maximum loan. A well-to-do farmer could go to the Land Bank and get a loan at low interest and without paying stamp duties, whereas a poor farmer must pay high interest and stamp duties besides. That was not fair. He referred to certain townspeople in Stellenbosch, Paarl, Montagu, and Worcester, who had ground which fell within the limits of the municipality. These people were really farmers, and yet could not go to this bank. He hoped that the amendment agreed to in committee of the House would be accepted.

said that the object of the Land Bank was to make it easy for farmers to get a loan. He was one of those who at first had not quite understood the meaning of the amendment. He would now, however, vote against the motion of the member for Rustenburg.

supported the amendment agreed to in committee. He voted in favour of it last time, and would do so again. He said the Land Bank Bill was class legislation. The Provincial authorities would shortly have control of the stamp duties. It would be unfair to reduce the duties. In view of the small loans which would be allotted, the stamp duties could not amount to much.

said that to accept the clause, as it now was, would do harm. He said that a man who got a loan of £2,000 would have to pay about £5 with regard to his application, and had also to pay stamp duties. He thought this unfair, and would like to see the stamp duties abolished.

had also been under a misunderstanding. He was, however, of opinion, that the object of the Bill was to help poor people. If this was so, he thought that the stamp duties ought not to be levied, and that the suggestion of the member for Rustenburg should be accepted. He would vote against the amendment.

said that when the Chairman put the amendment he spoke very loudly. When the question was put there was barely a quorum, but on the division being taken 70 hon. members participated in it.

thought that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was perfectly right in the argument he used.

said he had the great misfortune in committee to differ from the late Minister of Finance, and it was therefore very difficult for him (General Smuts) to go back upon the vote he then exercised. He thought the fifth schedule was fixed in view of the explanation given on clause 8. (Hear, hear.) If clause 8 remained as it was amended in committee then it was a question whether some alteration should not be made in the fifth schedule. He certainly could not now cancel his vote in committee on clause 8. All that Government could do now was to leave it an open question for hon. members to vote as they pleased.

thought that under the circumstances the best thing the Minister could do was not to take part in the division. He did not think it was fair for the Minister to shelter himself behind the unhappy position in which he found himself in having differed from his colleagues. It was a Government Bill, and when Government spoke with two voices on the same page of the measure it would be more dignified on the part of the Minister not to take part in the matter at all.

put the question: That the words proposed to be omitted in sub-section (2) of clause 8 stand part of the clause.

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

put the amendment in lines 47 and 48, to insert: “Provided that no single director shall be paid more than four hundred pounds in any one year.”

moved, as an amendment, to omit “single director” and to substitute “member”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved in lines 45 and 46 to omit “without further proof.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 23,

put the new sub-section (6).

moved as an amendment in line 37 to omit (3) and (4), and to substitute (4) and (5).

seconded.

moved as an amendment, in line 37 to omit all the words from “as is” to “this section.”

seconded. Both amendments were agreed to.

New clause 27,

moved as an amendment in line 5 to make ‘‘section” in the plural, and after “twenty-four” to insert “and twenty-six””

seconded. Agreed to.

On clause 36,

moved as an amendment in line 14 after “recourse to” to insert “a Court of”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that after the words “Gazette” the following be inserted, “and in some news paper circulating in the district.” His reason for moving the amendment was because his attention had been drawn to a very curious case in Australia, in which the Colonial Mutual sold certain land and the mortgagor brought an action for collusion against the Colonial Mutual, and for not having given proper or sufficient notice of the sale, and so forth, although they were completely within their legal rights The Court gave judgment for the Colonial Mutual, but the case was taken to the Appeal Court of Australia and the appeal was allowed, and the Court condemned the Colonial Mutual to pay the difference, and some very strong remarks were made by the Judge on the subject. In our case, we had only made provision for notice in the Gazette,” but everybody did not read the “Gazette,” although they ought to do so. (Laughter.)

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On the fifth schedule.

moved to reduce the amounts of fees by one-half.

seconded.

pointed out that the hardship was not so great as was imagined.

suggested the deletion of the whole schedule.

said that if the amendment were carried section 48 would have to be altered.

said that the schedule dealt with the fees payable to the bank, and was quite in order.

thought the schedule should be deleted, as the cost to mortgagors was excessive.

The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, South, was negatived.

On clause 4.

moved, in line 50. to omit “subject to the provisions of section 13.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved in sub-section (4), after “Council,” to insert “or any person who has been a member of the Senate, the House of Assembly or a Provincial Council until he shall have ceased to be a member for at least twelve months.” The hon. member said that his amendment actually followed the Natal Bank Law, which contained a similar proviso. The Natal Bank Law and the Cape Law were superior to the other laws. When the question was before the Natal House, it was moved that this should be inserted. No division was taken upon the point then.

seconded.

replying to an interjection of the Minister of the Interior, denied that anything in the nature of an insult to the House was intended by the amendment The same amendment was passed in both the Cape and Natal Houses of Parliament

said the point which they had to consider was this: that two Provincial Administrations discussed this amendment, and accepted it.

put the question, and declared the “’Noes” had it.

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

moved in line 66, after “central” to insert “Board.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 13,

moved in lines 52 and 55 before “Board” where it occurs to insert “central.”

seconded. Agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved in line 39, after “entered in” to omit “a”, and in the same line to make “book” in the plural where it occurs.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 19,

moved in line 21, after “soil, and” to insert “for”.

seconded.

This was negatived.

On clause 21,

moved to add a new sub-section to follow sub-section (2), viz.: “(3) Nothing in sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section contained shall be construed as preventing an advance being made upon the security of property within the Union already encumbered by a mortgage bond in favour of the Government, provided the bond was passed to secure an amount due to the Government as purchase price of such property and interest is not payable under the bond in respect of the said amount, and provided further the provisions of this Act are complied with, as to the value of the security.” The mover explained that he had brought up the amendment specially to cover certain cases in his own constituency. The mover explained that the Cape Government had sold farms in Bechuanaland and Barkly West. The purchase price was spread over 20 years with interest. The amendment was very reasonable, and made no inroads on the Bill, and at the same time it protected the Government, while it obviated the necessity of these people paying off a bond which bore no interest.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved the insertion of the following new sub-section: “(4) The restrictions against hypothecation of allotments referred to in Act No. 40 of 1906 and Act No. 41 of 1908 of the Cape of Good Hope shall not apply in respect of hypothecations to secure advances under this Act to holders of such allotments.” The Minister explained that the Tembuland Commission of 1882-3 granted allotments to settlers in the Elliot district and introduced a condition that the land so granted should not be capable of hypothecation, the object being to prevent the land getting into the hands of creditors, because the Government wanted to keep the settlers on their farms. He did not think they should debar people in the Elliot district who had land under this tenure from getting loans from the Land Bank.

seconded.

remarked that a man did not get his title until he had paid up.

pointed out that according to the Cape law of 1906 the erf holders at Elliot were not allowed to mortgage their ground. As the Land Bank represented the Government, he did not see any danger in the proposal to let these people have the benefits of this bank. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior would be accepted.

Both amendments were agreed to.

On clause 23,

moved, in sub-section 2, after “land,” to insert “together with the value of the improvements to be effected.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 25.

moved in line 4, before“advance to omit “the” and to substitute “an”, and after “advance” to insert “for thirty years”, and in line 32 after “advance” to insert “for thirty years”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved to delete “was” and to substitute “has been”.

seconded.

The amendment was carried.

On clause 29,

moved: In lines 2 and 3, of sub-section (4), to omit “obtain from the co-operative society or societies on whose behalf the guarantee is given” and to substitute, “be satisfied that each member of the co-operative society or societies on whose behalf the guarantee is given is capable of himself producing and supplying his agreed share of the article contracted to be supplied, and shall obtain from the said society or societies.” The mover said that in Committee of the Whole House there was a good deal of discussion on the proposal that the bank should give a guarantee for the performance of contracts by co-operative societies. The Transvaal Land Bank, before making such guarantees, satisfied itself that the members of the co-operative society concerned were in a position to produce the grain which was the subject of the guarantee. The object of his amendment, which he hoped the Minister would accept, was to put a stop to speculation, and to keep co-operative societies strictly to the objects for which they were organised.

seconded.

said he strongly agreed with the principle underlying the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, but he did not see how it would be possible for the bank to undertake the duty of finding out if every member of a large society were capable of supplying the article, and he would move in lines 2 and 3 of sub-section (4) to omit all the words from “obtain” to “given”, and to substitute “be satisfied that the co-operative society or societies on whose behalf the guarantee is given, is capable of supplying the article contracted to be supplied entirely from stocks furnished or to be furnished by its members, and shall obtain from the said society or societies”. That would obviate the necessity of the bank going round the district to find out whether every individual member was capable of supplying the article. He entirely agreed with the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Jagger), but the manner in which the amendment would operate would make it impossible for the bank to give a single guarantee.

seconded.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Neser) spoke of “stocks,” but there might not be any stocks at the time. Members of a society might send in their secretary an estimate of their mealie crops for the year, and the secretary would total them all up and the bank would give a guarantee, but there would be no stocks at that time. The mealies would still be growing.

was strongly against the Land Bank giving any guarantees at all, and as the next best thing to the elimination of the whole clause, he was prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said he quite agreed with the principle, but he was not in accord with the wording of either of the amendments. He suggested that he should consult with the chairman of the Land Bank in the Transvaal on the matter.

Mr. Jagger and Mr. Neser withdrew their amendments.

On clause 41,

moved in line 53, after “publish” to insert “monthly in the ‘ Gazette ’ a complete list of mortgages and securities accepted during the preceding month and”; and in the same line after “such” to insert “other.’ That, he said, was done in the case of the Transvaal Land Bank.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

The third reading was set down for Monday.

moved in line 33, after “to a” to insert “Judge-President or Puisne”; in line 34, after remuneration of” to omit “any” and to substitute “Judge-President or Puisne”; in line 35, to omit “after” and substitute “before”; in line 36, after “Act” to insert “but since the thirty-first May, 1910”: in line 39, after “division” to insert “Judge of the Griqualand Local Division.”

said that the Minister promised to consider the question of local allowances in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. He thought there should be a time limit.

said he understood his hon. friend to say that the difference between the local allowance as laid down in the schedule should not be continued for all time. In the meanwhile he did not think it would be expedient for them to make any change. He proposed to make a suggestion when they reached the schedule.

asked whether the Minister would get rid of it by a special Act?

No.

said he thought that the House was making the allowance permanent.

said he would insert in the schedule “a sum not to exceed so much,” and then it could be reduced to a minimum of a penny or nothing.

said if they were going to vote on the clause then they should know the exact terms of the schedule. He thought the clause should stand over until the schedule was reached.

moved that the clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 4,

said he had intended to move “60” wherever “65” appeared, but he had been told that it would mean an increase of expenditure unless “may” was substituted for “shall.” He asked the Chairman whether it was competent to propose the amendment of which he had given notice, in the form in which it appeared on the order paper?

ruled that the amendment would be in order if the word “may” be substituted for the word “shall” in the first line.

moved in line 64, on page 4, to omit “ten,” and to substitute “fifteen.”

moved on page 4, in line 68, to omit “thirteen” and to substitute “twelve”; in line 69, to omit “twelve” and to substitute “eleven”; and on page 6, line 2, to omit “eleven hundred” and to substitute “one thousand and fifty.”

moved in sub-section (2), to omit all the words after “incapacity” in line 15 to the end of the clause, and substitute the following: “And may, in either such event, cause to be paid to him an annual pension calculated in such manner as to allow (a) in the case of the Chief Justice of South Africa, £130; (b) in the case of an ordinary Judge of Appeal. £120; (c) in the case of a Judge-President of a provincial or local division, £110; and (d) in the case of a Puisne Judge of a provincial or local division, £100; for every completed year of actual service: provided that in no event shall the pension so paid be less than £400 per annum or more than the pension payable under sub-section (1), according as the said person is retiring from the office of Chief Justice, ordinary Judge of Appeal, Judge-President, or Puisne Judge.” He would like to add a new sub-section 3, the effect of which would be that as soon as a judge has reached the age of 65 he “shall” retire, and the pension would vary as to whether he had served 10 years or less. A great deal would depend upon the Chairman’s ruling in regard to clause 1, as to whether this would mean increased expenditure. He suggested that sub-section 4 should stand over until the decision had been given.

It would be in-creased expenditure if the word “shall” is to remain.

Then I ask that the clause stand over as in the case of clause 1.

pointed out that the amendment of the hon. member would give a judge the right to retire at 60, and he (Mr. Brown) would move an amendment. In line 64 it read “for a period of ten years or more.” He would move that “15 years” be put in there. He challenged any hon. member in that House to mention a country in the world where they paid a pension to their judges at the end of 10 years.

Ger-many and the United States.

Fifteen years in the United States.

I have it 10.

maintained that in cases where it was 10 years the retiring age was 70. It was 15 years all over, and it should be 15 years in this country. He held in his hand a return of work performed by the judges. It might not be a fair account. (An HON. MEMBER: “It is not.”) Everybody knew that the review work was much heavier than the work in the Courts. He instanced the case of Mr. T. F. Carter, who, he said, appointed himself to a position at £2,250 a year, and then immediately after signing his appointment and getting it signed by the Governor, gave himself six months’ leave of absence, at a cost of £825 to the country. It was a public scandal.

said that no doubt the hon. member was a great authority upon what judges do, but he differed entirely. He was under a misapprehension as to the review work being the more arduous. He was probably thinking of the Eastern Districts Court. There was no doubt that work was exceedingly arduous in the Eastern Districts Court. He wished some hon. members who seemed to think that judges did no work could have the pleasure of having to go through that review work. But that work was not so heavy in regard to Cape Town. There the judges sat in the Courts almost continuously. Things were very different from the “good old days,” when there was practically a week’s vacation after a month or so. There was not so now, and a vacation was only a vacation in name. The work was very hard indeed, and he could see no comparison which could be drawn between this and any other country. If they were going to have 70 years as a limit, the pensions would never be drawn, they may as well raise the salaries a little more and do away with pensions altogether. He agreed with the hon. member for George that 65 years was too much. If they would look at the pension list they would see that after all they did not draw it. They must not encourage men when they were getting too old. He hoped the Minister of Justice would let the clause stand over.

moved an amendment to make the Chief Justice’s pension £1,200, instead of £1,300, and that the pensions of ordinary Appeal Judges and Judge-Presidents should be reduced by £100.

said if there was an error it had not been made on the side of generosity. Compared with the pensions of heads of departments in the Civil Service these judges were going to occupy a place far lower, and the hon. member who had last spoken wanted to make this disparity even greater.

said that the pensions for the judges were high enough How many Civil Servants got such high pensions even after they had done many years of service? He supported the amendment of the member for Ficksburg. When judges were pensioned they were old and had very little need of high incomes. Judges ought to save something for their old days and insure their lives just as other officials had to do. The pension list was already high enough. Who had to pay all these high pensions? Look at the teachers and the small pensions with which they had to be satisfied.

said that the high salaries and pensions of the judges were based on their high responsibility, but in cases of murder and other serious cases it was the members of the jury who had the greatest responsibility, and they got only a few shillings per day.

said that last year the hon. member for Ficksburg had supported pensions to begin at £l,500 to £1,100. Now the Minister had reduced both salaries and pensions, and still the hon. member was not satisfied. The age of retirement should remain at 65, and he (the speaker) could not vote for the amendment.

supported the amendment of the member for Ficksburg. The salaries were already high enough. They must be careful. He asked if the judges had to work fixed hours. Witnesses had sometimes to wait for 12, 15 or 20 days. He wished that the judges should do a proper and fair day’s work. The judges ought to be satisfied. He would even vote for a proposal to do away altogether with pensions for judges.

said that from several of the speeches one would think that the country was overstocked with judges. Take Cape Colony. A judge was entitled to a pension after 10 years’ service and could retire at 60, but there was not a single judge in Cape Colony who was on pension; therefore, what was the use of making wild statements? It was the same in the Transvaal, they were not overstocked in the Transvaal with judges on pension. Surely in their direct experience they did not see the country overrun with judges.

said the hon. member for Ficksburg should withdraw his amendment. As had been pointed out by the hon. member for Harbour, a judge very seldom resigned on pension. For a matter of £50 the amendment was not worth all the discussion spent on it. The Court must consist of men of experience and knowledge. It was a fact that as a result of the small salaries offered South Africa had in general never been able to draw the most efficient men to the Bench. The experienced advocate earned more than £5,000 or even £10,000 per annum. Their earnings would tend to become more as the population expanded, when more court cases would take place. For an advocate in England or America an income of £20,000 and £30,000 was not a rarity. He was not sure whether the proposed salaries and pensions would draw the best men to the Bench. They could always get second and third rate advocates, but those were the people they did not like to see on the Bench. In reply to a remark by the hon. member for Vrededorp, the Minister said that if judges would not work more than eight hours a day the number of judges would have to be considerably enlarged. More than half of a judge’s time was taken up by studying the documents before the Court and looking up Acts and previous judgments, a work of far greater importance than the hearing of witnesses on the Bench. He could not agree to alter the age limit to 60 years.

moved: On page 4, line 65, to omit “entitled,” and to substitute “required,” and to add at the end of sub-section (1) the following proviso, viz.: “Provided that the Governor-General may for special reasons extend the term of office of any such judge beyond the age of sixty-five years for periods of one year at a time, such extended period not to exceed in all the period of five years.” That would prevent judges sometimes staying on the Bench when they were no longer fit to carry out the arduous duties of their office.

said that in connection with the difficulty raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) it was an old law in South Africa, so that he did not think they need go further than that. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), he would be only too glad to come to the hon. member’s assistance, but he did not think he (General Hertzog) would be justified under the circumstances in allowing the clause to stand over. He was not in favour of 60 years. Sixty-five was a reasonable age, and he thought they could safely consider the hon. member’s further amendment, with which he was quite sympathetic.

said that in view of what had fallen from the Minister of Justice he would say nothing more with regard to the age of retirement. With regard to his second amendment he would alter “and shall” to “and may.”

supported the amendment of the member for Ficksburg. He hoped that the Minister would accept it. He judge was a highly placed person, but so was a brave soldier, though his salary or pension was much lower than that of a judge.

supported the clause as printed. He had explained the clause to his constituents, and they had given him a mandate, to vote for it. The member for Ficksburg wanted to advertise himself with his amendment at the expense of the Government and the party. The speaker referred to Hansard, and pointed out that the member for Ficksburg last year supported a pension of £1,500 for the Chief Justice. The proposal of the Minister was now that the pension should be less. He could not understand why the member for Ficksburg now proposed to make it still less.

moved:

That the following be a new sub-section (3): “(3) Should any person in receipt of a pension under this Act reside for more than seven months in any one year outside the Union, his pension shall be reduced for that year by 20 per cent.” He pointed out that 1,000 South African pensioners were at present residing out of the country.

said that if the £1,000 had been laid down as the maximum pension he would have supported it, but it was puny to cut the amount down by £50 here and £100 there. So far as retirement was concerned, he pointed out there was no compulsory retirement age in any other country. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn, as it would be unworthy of the House to vote on the question of reducing a pension of £50. So far as age was concerned, did not there come a time when a man was unfitted for work and did not recognise this fact?

moved to add at the end of the clause: “Provided, however, that all pensions from £1,000 upwards shall be reduced by 50 per cent., and all pensions below £1,000 by 35 per cent., if such judge is domiciled outside the Union of South Africa and residence outside the Union for a longer period than a year shall be taken to mean that the person concerned has left the Union.”

said that things had reached such a stage that amendments should be moved cutting down a pension by 15 per cent. if a judge was not married and a reduction of 25 per cent, for every child less than half a dozen. It was quite clear that either the House was lamentably ignorant of the necessities of the administration of justice or it did not care.

hoped that the amendment, which he opposed, would be withdrawn. It would be a most ungenerous course for the House to pursue.

said that South Africa had always been willing to pay good salaries to good judges. The pension question was something else. They had to discourage those who are pensioned from going to other countries to live on the money paid out to them by the people of South Africa. He was astounded to see the attitude of the member for Jeppe, who was in favour of State aided immigration, and yet permitted pensioned officials to go to other countries to spend their money.

said that he did not want an advertisement. He was a member of this House on his own merits, and he should vote for the cheapest proposal. The Minister of Justices had taken away many of his objections, but the pension list was already very big with little pensions of £50 and £100, and that was why he moved his amendment. The Pension Committee often refused small pensions to poor widows, whilst others had large pensions to live in luxury. There was a sufficient number of good advocates to fill any vacancy on the Bench.

said he would like to withdraw his amendment.

Agreed to.

there upon moved another amendment: In line 65, after “of” to insert “seventy years be required to retire,” and if he has attained the age of”. That meant that at 70 years of age a judge must retire, and at 65 he may retire. That would not have the effect of increasing expenditure at all, because if a judge stayed on there would only be one salary.

It being five minutes to six o’clock p.m.,

stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted by the House on the 26th April, he would now report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

This was done, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.

Business was suspended at 5.56 p.m.

referred to the discussion which took place in committee on Thursday night last in regard to the practice as to questions of the salaries of officers and servants of the House. In the old Cape House, he said, it was always understood that the question of the salaries of officers and servants of the House were subject to the recommendations of the Committee on Internal Arrangements. In the early part of last session, the Minister of the Interior moved to appoint a Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, and two or three days afterwards he moved that the question of those salaries should be referred to that committee. An amendment was moved by the right hon. the member for Victoria West that these salaries should be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Some of them understood that that amendment had only reference to that session, and that it was in the nature of a sessional order. They did not regard it as being an order for all time. Naturally they were under the impression that this session they would revert to the old Cape practice, which was that all these questions in regard to the salaries of officers and servants of the House should be referred to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. He was given to understand that that was still the practice in another place. They heard last Thursday evening that members of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements took umbrage at the fact that they had not been consulted about the matter of salaries of officers and servants of the House and other matters concerning the internal arrangements of the House, and he must say that he sympathised with them very largely. In this vote there were some items which he thought the House should be able to deal with, and deal with in accordance-with the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. There was, for instance, the matter of the reading-room. That place was as it was twenty years ago, and the number of members had during that time doubled, and he must say that the pokey arrangement which still existed in that apartment did not reflect credit upon that House. He should propose a motion which he hoped the Minister in charge of the Estimates would accept. He had, firstly, in view the rehabilitation of the members of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, and in the next place to get some report from them during the next few days not only on salaries, but other matters referred to on Vote 3. He, there, moved: That the further consideration of this vote stand over, and that the Chairman bring up to the House to-morrow a special report recommending that this vote and details thereof be referred to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements for consideration and report, and with an instruction that the said Select Committee bring up its report to the House within one week from to-day.

said he thought that this motion was out of order. This matter had been referred to them to deal with. It was now moved that they should not deal with this vote, but that some other body should deal with it and make a report. To whom? Not to them, but to the House. They had to deal with this matter as a Committee of the whole House. Of course, the hon. member could move that this vote should stand over, and, if it stood over, he could move in the whole House that it be referred to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements for report. But such a motion as this moved now could not be in order. It seemed to him that they were at such a stage of the session now that they ought to go on with this business and not interpolate a reference to some other body. Last year the questions of salaries, etc., of officials and servants of the House were referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. That committee made a report. The report came before the House at a very late stage, and it was then found not possible to deal with these matters. But there was the report, and the Government in the interim, when they came to frame the Estimates, thought it their duty to place these recommendations on the Estimates, and they were now dealing with those recommendations. Whatever changes had been made in the salaries of officers of the House were duly recommended by the committee appointed last year to deal with the matter.

said that the Minister had referred to the report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. He dared say the committee would remember that when the report was brought up first of all the Minister of Finance called the attention of Mr. Speaker to the question of how the thing was to be proceeded with, and then the right hon. the member for Victoria West and others raised the point that this report should not be acted upon until it had been considered by the House. On that occasion the Minister of Railways and Harbours said that unless the House approved it would not be passed, unless the matter was brought before the House no action would be taken. Well, they understood that no action would be taken. It was an invidious matter to have to deal with such an item as Mr. Speaker’s salary, and he hoped the Minister would allow the matter to go before the Standing Committee on Internal Arrangements. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. member for Queenstown would press his amendment, and allow this to go before the committee. Furthermore, that would give an opportunity of considering the salaries of the lower officials, who were not adequately remunerated for the work they did.

hoped his hon. friend would allow the vote to stand over until the House was in full session, because otherwise they would be drawing invidious distinctions between the lower officials of the two Houses, where it was evident that the lower officials in the House of Assembly were called upon to do a greater amount of work for less remuneration. It was an unpleasant thing to discuss the salary of Mr. Speaker, and he could see no reason why that should not be put in the form of a Bill.

pointed out that the question of salaries from the Speaker downwards was referred to the committee, and the committee made a report, and that report was embodied in the Estimates. His hon. friend suggested that the matter should be referred to another committee. One committee, it was suggested was to sit upon the work of another. Here was a committee of the whole House, and he did not see what good purpose would be served by any further reference.

said if this were carried the whole question of the vote would go to the committee and their recommendations would be brought up when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. The report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders was never adopted.

said that personally he desired to draw the attention of the Minister to the anomalies existing between the servants of this House and the servants of the other House.

urged the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Queenstown as being the only constitutional way in which they could deal with the matter.

said the committee should not shirk its duty. The whole question was whether certain salaries recommended for increase should be voted on or not. The only salaries in the vote which were increased, compared with last year, were the salaries of Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House, the Assistant Clerk and the Clerk of the Papers. Last year the House specially referred the question to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, which made certain recommendations, and Mr. Speaker said that the only way the Government could deal with these increases was to place them on the Supplementary Estimates. He thought that the arguments advanced by the Minister in charge of the Estimates were very sound and that his views should be supported. It seemed to him that the committee were nervous. Hon. members on the other side of the House could move a reduction if they desired. Continuing, Mr. Hull said what was the use of the House trying to shirk its responsibilities to a committee which sat behind closed doors? With regard to the other recommendations referred to by the leader of the Opposition, the Supplementary Estimates would reflect those other re-commendations.

said the hon. member for Barberton had not stated the whole of the case. When the subject was last discussed, they drew attention to discrepancies between the salaries paid to the messengers of the Assembly and of another place. If the hon. member had given his explanation at the beginning of the discussion, it would have saved a good deal of time.

said the hon. member for Barberton had missed the point. They were not so much concerned with the items that had been increased as with the salaries of individual officers, which were much too low for the work they performed. They had no evidence that those salaries were considered by the Select Committee. Hon. members would be shocked to know that officers working round about where they were legislating were receiving absurdly low sums for absurdly long hours. These officers started at seven in the morning, and did not leave off until an hour or two after the House had risen. The messengers worked on an average 85 hours a week. Had hon. members noticed when they asked messengers to do something for them how tired they looked? (Laughter.) Hon. members laughed. They ought to be ashamed—(hear, hear)—to laugh at an expression of opinion like that. The messengers were tired, and they got a very pitiful remuneration indeed. (Hear, hear.) The committee was absolutely debarred from moving an increase in their wages. Then the Clerk of the Papers—a very capable official—was paid only £250 a year.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Queenstown, adding that hon. members were placed in a most invidious position and they were entitled to ask Government to listen to their proposal.

said he would like to join in the appeal to the Minister. That committee could not make any recommendations for increases of salaries, but seeing the strong opinion that existed on that side of the House, the matter should go before a Select Committee.

moved that the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

pointed out that the circumstances this session were very different to what they were last session, the work now being very much heavier.

said he was sorry he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Denver.

withdrew his amendment.

said there was no other way of seeing that these matters were fairly dealt with. He thought the Minister might accept the proposal.

asked if the increase were to take effect from April, 1911, as recommended by the committee?

The motion of the hon. member for Queenstown was put, and declared lost.

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

moved, in view of the committee’s decision, that the Speaker’s salary be reduced to £1,750. In addition he would suggest that the salary of the Chairman of Committees should be increased by £50 to £400. (Laughter.)

The hon. Member cannot allocate increases.

said that that being so, he would merely move that the salary of the Speaker should be reduced to £1,750.

said he was afraid that this discussion would Last two years, for the Minister had announced that he would not bring in a Bill dealing with the subject until next year. They would have the same debate next year. Though they had put that gentleman in a responsible and dignified position, he was afraid that he could not support any increase in Mr. Speaker’s salary. The Speaker of the old Cape Parliament received £1,500 a year, and though the duties of the Speaker of the Union House extended over a longer period he did not think that they were more arduous. Again, the Speaker of the Union House resided in Cape Town, and he was not put to any extra expense. He maintained that the present salary that was paid the Speaker was ample, and he could not support an increase. He had taken the trouble to look up the amounts that were paid in other countries, and he found that the Speaker of the Commonwealth Parliament received £1,100 a year. In the first year it sat for ten months in the year. The House of Commons in Canada paid its Speaker £800 a year, and the work was at least as arduous as here in South Africa. For those reasons he was not able to support the increase. He intended later on to deal with the whole scale of salaries. He could not see why they should pay their Speaker more than twice as much as Canada. We were not richer, nor had we a greater population. It was simply we were swelled-headed, that was all.

said that his object in moving the reduction was with a view to getting a more equitable distribution.

said that regarding the comparisons that had been made in the salaries of the Speakers of this and other countries, he thought hon. members would agree with him that it was well to have as the Speaker of the House a lawyer, owing to the legal questions that arose. He thought a much better test than either the Australian or Canadian comparisons was the salaries paid to our judges in this country. He thought it was a fair position that the Speaker of that House should be paid at least the same salary that a puisne judge was paid in this country. He thought, considering the important position occupied by the Speaker, it was perfectly fair and reasonable to ask that there should be some comparison between the salary of the Speaker and that of a puisne judge. The position of Speaker was a more important one. (An HON. MEMBER: “No, no.”) He heard an hon. member gay “No.” On that point he found it impossible to argue. The whole position was taken into review by a Select Committee last year, and the Select Committee made the recommendation that was now put on the Estimates. He could quite understand hon. members wanting to have this matter referred to another Select Committee, for nobody liked to tackle the question of the salary of the Speaker. But he had no doubt that last year’s Select Committee arrived at a proper decision, and they were right in increasing the salary. His hon. friend opposite had said that the salary of the Speaker of the Cape Parliament was £1,500. but he forgot to mention that the salary of the same official in the Transvaal was £1.000 more.

said he could hardly let the remarks of the Minister of the Interior pass without comment. It was said that it was usual to appoint a legal gentleman to this office, and that therefore they should give him a large salary. He then proceeded to refer to the salary of the Speaker of this House with a puisne judge. That was a comparison that did not apply in any way whatever. (Hear, hear.) The Speaker of that House was elected the same as any other ordinary member, and he had conferred upon him the greatest honour that could be conferred upon him in voting him to the chair of that House. He accepted that position not at all because of the emoluments connected with it. Sir T. W. Smartt proceeded to pay tributes to the hon. members for Queenstown and Cape Town, Harbour, both of whom had acted as Speaker in an impartial and admirable manner. He mentioned also the names of others who had held positions as Ministers at a salary of £1,500 a year, with a view to emphasising his argument that the emolument was not the question that the House had to consider. The position of Speaker was one of dignity and honour, which hon. members were prepared to accept when they believed it was the wish of their colleagues in Parliament, and by accepting it they could do their duty to the House and to the country. He considered in these circumstances that it was unwise that the salary should have been increased in the first year of Parliament. The hon. gentlemen opposite were responsible for placing the House in the position that evening of discussing the matter.

said he did not see any reason for mock modesty. He thought £1,750 was a handsome salary, but to put another £250 to it was another question.

said the Minister of the Interior had led them down a side track. Quoting from a return laid on the table recently, Mr. Alexander showed what it would cost to get a Judge to act for six months. He mentioned three instances which cost respectively for the six months £95115s., £951 15s., and £1,100, for the six months. The point was that they could go into what an hon. member had termed “the market of lawyers” and get the very best men they wanted to sit on the Bench for six months in the year, and, according to the return laid on the table of the House, need not pay them more than £1,100 for that time. And here was the Speaker getting £1,750 per year, while there was nothing to prevent him practising in the courts when Parliament was not sitting. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) There was nothing to prevent him. They had laid down no rules to prevent their Speaker from following his ordinary profession when Parliament was not sitting. It was impossible for the Minister to say that they could prevent it. So that the Speaker would get £1,750 and still be able to practise at the Bar. He did not think the Minister had given them any good reasons for the proposed increase. Everyone respected the Speaker: but when they increased salaries the Government should come forward with some proposal to increase the pay of the daily-paid men on the railways and other men in the Service before they went in for increases of this sort. If there were going to be a general all-round increase, then let the Speaker participate; but £1,750 compared with what Speakers received in other parts of the world was very extravagant. He hoped the increase to £2,000 would not be agreed to.

said that he understood that the reason for the proposed increase was on account of a desure to maintain the dignity of the Chair. They should protest, emphatically, on every occasion, against dignity being maintained by the sordid consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence. And he wanted to protest against the illegitimate use of the report of a Select Committee appointed last year when that report had not been presented to the House. He was sorry that the Minister was so hard put to it that he had to rake up such arguments as he did. He began by saying that they must have a lawyer in the chair of the House, and then said that the dignity of the Chair would be enhanced by a paltry £250 a year.

said he would like to add that when the Government brought that report out last year, the Government seemed peculiarly shy in bringing it before the House. They not only failed to bring it before the House, but failed to deal with it when the Supplementary Estimates were brought before the House. Now they found the Minister of the Interior using it to bolster up his arguments for increasing the Speaker’s salary.

There was no necessity to consider the question of a Judge of the Supreme Court when considering the question of the Speaker’s salary, because there was no comparison. He had to confess it astonished him to hear the murmur from the other side of the House when it was said that the Speaker was a barrister and could carry on his profession when the House was not sitting. They had the precedent of Ministers of South African Governments carrying on their occupations as barristers before the Courts. He knew it was stopped subsequently; but it was not because it was not in accordance with the dignity of their positions; but for a reason very easily understood, and which had been referred to in the House that evening. It appeared strange to him that there was this sudden desire that evening to pay that respect to a report that had not been placed before Parliament last year. He thought they were going to commit a constitutional breach if they agreed to this increase. They had it laid down in the Act of Union that the Speaker’s salary shall be laid down by an Act of Parliament, and they had not carried that out. There was no excuse for it. They hoped that when they exposed the flouting of laws by one Minister that, collectively, they would obey the law; but they had taken no notice of it. Here was a clear case where the Minister had departed from the law, carried unanimously, that Parliament shall fix the salary of the Speaker of the House. They were having this discussion to-night, and he was perfectly certain they would have it again next year. He did not know what legislation the Government were going to introduce then; but when they introduced that Bill they were going to have that discussion over again. He had hoped that the Minister in charge of this vote would have taken the hint given him last week, and would have introduced that Bill. When this matter was done with he would move an amendment.

said he would like to remind the hon. member opposite (General Beyers) that when he was the Speaker of the Transvaal House of Assembly he was given an increase of salary on the understanding that he would not follow his profession at the Bar. And if this vote had been brought forward on the same understanding they could have understood it. But it was not. In the Transvaal it was shown that the hon. member was suffering pecuniary loss by occupying the position of Speaker; but in this case no such contention was put forward.

said he hoped they would not divide on such a subject. They must maintain the dignity of the House. He quite agreed with his colleague Both the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders and Internal Arrangements had come to a unanimous decision on the subject of the Speaker’s salary. The report was the opinion of both sides, and the reason which led the committee was to save the Speaker’s dignity and to make it unnecessary for him to practise outside. In the Transvaal, the salary was fixed at £2,000, and the Opposition then suggested that the salary should be increased to £2,500 on the ground that the former amount was not sufficient to preserve the dignity of the House. The arguments used now were of the same force.

said that as to the argument of keeping up the dignity of the Chair, surely the Speaker could keep up the dignity of the Chair on £1,750 a year. Then his right hon. friend had stated that the report of the committee was unanimous, but surely hon. members could use their own judgment as well. Surely they were just as capable of forming their own judgment on the matter. The same hon. gentleman who was Speaker of that House had been Speaker of the Cape House of Assembly, and he had contrived to keep up the dignity of the Chair on £1,500 a year; and why could he not do so now? The cost of living was no more, and circumstances were much the same, except that he had to sit a little longer. Suppose the House sat for five months in the year, he sat 120 days, and some judges sat 175 days. Would his hon. friend say that the Speaker had to do the same work as the judges? The latter had to deal with tremendous issues, and sometimes with life and death: and there could be no comparison, to his mind. He would strongly support the amendment.

said that he would like to show why they should not accept the report of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. On November 10, 1910, the Minister of the Interior had moved that some matters be referred to the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, and a member of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee had moved that, as the matters to be considered were of such importance, they should be referred to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Three points had been referred to that committee, firstly, with regard to the production of Hansard; secondly, the salaries of the President, the Speaker, the Clerks of the House, and the Sergeantat - Arms; and thirdly, the appointment of and the salaries of the remainder of the staff of the Parliamentary establishment. The matter had been considered of such importance that only on April 5, 1911, or nearly four months afterwards, had the committee reported, but they had forgotten the third reference, and never reported on that. On the following day the Minister of Finance had asked for a ruling, and asked whether it was competent for the House to consider the report as Item No. 3 had already been passed? The Speaker ruled that it was not competent to do so, and said that it was possible for the Government to bring it up on the Supplementary Estimates; but the Government had not moved in the matter and had not given the House an opportunity of considering the report; and he thought that if the House had done so, it would have been referred back to the committee. The third point was just as important to the people concerned as the other two points; and he contended very strongly that that matter was not within the province of that committee. He maintained that it was outside the power of this committee to consider that matter, because by section 35 of Act 19 of 1911 it was enacted that the salaries of the President and Speaker should be fixed by an Act of Parliament, and the Act of Union prescribed the method of legislation. The proper way would be to introduce a measure, when the House would have every opportunity of considering every point. The position of the Speaker had been compared to that of a judge, but the importance and responsibilities of the latter were infinitely greater. When the Speaker had given his ruling they had to accept it, although they might not agree with it, whereas that of Judges was subject to appeal, and the Judges were never free from worry and responsibility. The Chief Justice, when he was President of the Cape Legislative Council, had received only £500 a year extra, although it was true that his emolument went on.

said that, according to the argument of the last speaker, the Speaker should have no salary at all, but should be recompensed by hearing speeches such as those of the hon. members opposite. (Laughter.)

And yours, too.

The hon. member pointed out that in England the Speaker drew £5,000 a year, but then the Chairman of Committees received £2,500. He did not think that any increase in salary was necessary, and after all they must consider the necessities of the position, and it did not seem to him that the necessity for an increase had been made out. (Hear, hear) The whole scale of salaries in that House would have to be raised if the Speaker’s salary were raised, unless they were to do an injustice to a considerable number of people. (Hear, hear.) It was a wise thing for that committee to resist increases of salary at the beginning—at the fountain-head—(hear hear) and he would like hon. members to bear in mind the financial conditions of the country. Here they were budgeting for a deficit of £1,350,000 this year, and they had large increases on the votes. They were faced with a deficit of two millions next year, and his hon. friends would have to meet the gap between revenue and expenditure. He did not believe it to be the wish of his constituents, nor of the constituents of other hon. members, to increase the burdens of the country. It was possible that a majority of the House would vote for the increase at the present time, but next year (his opinion was) there would not be a member who would not wish that the committee had unanimously decided not to increase the salary of a highly placed official.

said that he was going to vote for the increase. He had already voted for it, and would again do so. He thought that the discussion was not one which added to the dignity’ of the House nor the dignity of the Chair. Let the two sides of the House differ politically, if necessary, but where it was a question of upholding the dignity of the Chair and of the House he thought that they should not argue like that, and should be rather careful. In the old Cape Parliament the Speaker’s salary had been £1,500 a year, and now the amount of work was twice what it used to be, and £500 a year extra was but a small sum for so much extra work. They could not expect the highest authority in that House to appear at the Bar of the Supreme Court as an ordinary practitioner. Although there was no law forbidding the Speaker to practise he knew that as a matter of fact the Speaker did not do so, as it would be undignified.

said that he must also strongly oppose this increase. (Hear, hear.) He could not conscientiously vote for it. He felt that he was voicing the feeling of the whole of his constituency, in fact the whole of the town, against such an increase, in face of the fact that they had a deficit to meet.

said he hoped hon. members would vote on what they considered to be the necessities of the case. He objected strongly to a question of this kind being made a party question at all. He would point out that this was really the first opportunity they had had of discussing the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee, and that Ministers themselves thought at first that £1,750 was a sufficient salary for the office. Ministers therefore must not blame some of them if they still held the opinion that Ministers themselves held at first. He quite agreed that, if Parliament were sitting in Pretoria, he should not consider the figure proposed was too high, but the difference in spending power between here and Pretoria was very considerable indeed. He was of opinion that the sum of £1,750, for an ordinary six months’ session in each year, met the necessities of the case.

said he intended to vote for the increased salary. He regretted that Government did not fix the salary at £2,000 during the first session. It was a mistake to suppose that the Speaker had nothing to do during the recess. He had a great deal to do during the recess, looking up authorities, and keeping abreast of Parliamentary practice. Apart from that, it was infra dig, for a Speaker to practise as a barister. They were now in that House doing the work of four Parliaments, and he appealed to the hon. member for Queenstown, as an old Speaker, to support the proposed increase. He could not understand the attitude of the Opposition on this question, as last year not a word was said against in the salary of the Auditor-General.

said there was only one excuse to make with regard to the hon. member’s reference to the Auditor-General, and that was that the hon. member did not know the facts. (Hear, hear.) It was common knowledge that the reason for the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was that in their opinion a definite engagement had been entered into.

said the attitude of the hon. members on Government benches in regard to this matter was in striking contrast to their unsympathetic attitude in regard to the question of the pay of the messengers. He had particularly noticed the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Geldenhuys), who claimed to represent one of the poorest constituencies in South Africa. The hon. member had ridiculed any suggestion that men ill-paid should be given higher wages, and yet the hon. member posed as the friend of poor whites. (Labour cheers.) Charity began at home, and the hon. member had an opportunity here to show it, but he ridiculed the attempt made by the Opposition side of the House to raise the salaries of the poorer paid men. The Minister also was unsympathetic, but when it came to the higher paid officials he altered his tune. They were told that the dignity of the position must be maintained, and there was no talk of going into the open market, which was the answer that the Minister would give them—as the Minister of Railways had done on a previous occasion—if they had pressed the matter of the lower paid officials. The Minister would tell them that he could get hundreds of men at the same price; therefore they took advantage of these men’s necessities. (Hear, hear.) But that kind of talk was not used when the higher paid men were concerned. Quite right—a man should be paid what he was worth. The only question was—what was he worth? The greatest surprise to him (Mr. Andrews) was the total silence of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who had lectured the Labour members very frequently on the question of enormous wages and had deplored the extravagant salaries and pensions of Civil Servants; but the hon. member had not said a word that night (Opposition and Labour cheers.) He hoped the hon. member for Victoria West would sit with the apostles of economy.

said that he was generally against these high salaries. He had shown that when the salaries and pensions of the Judges were under discussion. He feared that there existed a tendency to increase salaries of officials because others received a still greater salary. He considered that therein lay a great danger. The Minister of the Interior had just now said that Mr. Speaker’s position was not less than that of a Puisne Judge. If that was so, then they ought to bring the salary of Mr. Speaker up to £2,250, that of a Puisne Judge.

felt that they were going on at a pace they could not keep up. (Opposition cheers.) He also felt that the Speaker held a position which he had to maintain, and they must give him a salary to enable him to keep it up. But they had no right to increase his salary, and they had a duty to their constituents. His constituents felt that the Union was going on at too fast a pace. It was for that reason that he could not support the increase. (Opposition cheers.)

said he had noticed in the course of the discussion that a great point was made by a good many members of the fact that Government had put these items on the Estimates without giving the House any opportunity of discussing the report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders on this matter. There was no desire to burke discussion. In what way could Government give the House an opportunity of discussing the report than by putting the amounts recommended on the Estimates?

You have made it a party question, and an offensive one.

Why speaker after speaker on this side has declared he is going to vote against it I never heard such a ridiculous thing. The Government has placed the recommendation contained in the report of the Select Committee before the House in the Estimates, and by so doing has given the only opportunity it could of enabling the House to discuss the report.

What about the lower paid men?

I am speaking of the specific report made by the Select Committee as to the increase of the Speaker’s salary. Proceeding, Mr. Burton quoted as follows from the minutes of the proceedings of the Select Committee: “TheChairman left the room, and the Prime Minister took the chair. The committee had under consideration the salary of Mr. Speaker. The committee agreed, without dividing, that the salary of Mr. Speaker should be £2,000 a year.”

That was last year.

Last year.

To give what?

The memory of my hon. friend appears to be defective.

Who were there?

Mr. Speaker, who was chairman, the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Merriman. Continuing, he said that the Select Committee of the House unanimously passed this motion. They had no time last session to discuss this matter, and the Government had taken the only course it could adopt by placing the amount on the Estimates, and giving the House a full and fair opportunity of discussing the question and voting upon it. Reference had been made to the salaries paid to other officials of this House. Other comparisons had been produced. His humble view was that the House, in discussing the question of salaries, should discuss the salary of the Speaker and his salary alone. If one started comparisons one drew conclusions that were false and unsatisfactory. He considered that Mr. Speaker’s salary should be discussed on its own merits.

Puisne judges. (Laughter.)

I am not. (Laughter.) What has the salary of a judge got to do with this question. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said the salary should be discussed not on the personal merits of Mr. Speaker, not on the merits of the particular occupant of the chair, but the merits and the position of the Chair in that House alone. If the salary of £1,500 which was paid the Speaker of the Cape House was not excessive, then he could not see why hon. members should say that the salary—£2,000—of the Speaker of the Union House was excessive. In this instance they had business from four quarters, from the whole of South Africa, and the duties of Mr. Speaker were arduous and responsible. And here they were wasting time talking about an increase in Mr. Speaker’s salary. The Speaker of the Transvaal House of Assembly got £2,000.

Yes.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East in that House suggested, by way of preserving the dignity of the Chair, that the salary of Mr. Speaker in that instance should be £2,500, not £2,000.

Quite correct.

said that many of the Speakers in the Cape were practising lawyers before they undertook the Speakership. It was not necessary that the Speaker should be a lawyer, though it was a good training ground. He pointed out that it was only fair to state that when an hon. gentleman who was a lawyer accepted the Speakership, he threw up his practice. (Cries of “Oh.”) These cries of dissent did not affect the matter. If the Speaker was unfortunate enough to lose his seat, he had to go back to work—poor man! He had to start de novo. He would have lost his connection, and he would have to catch the threads again.

Members have to do the same.

It applies to members of Parliament.

said there were a good many people who thought the hon. member was being paid a great deal too much.

There is a very obvious retort.

said that for a professional man who became a member of Parliament, £400 a year was not in the least too much. He pointed out that no man who took up the duties of Speaker would dream of attempting to continue his practice. Income from that source was barred him. In the Cape House, the Speaker got the same salary as a Minister.

put the amendment, and declared the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, with the following result:

said the late Minister of Finance, now the member for Barberton, made a statement to the effect that in all probability Supplementary Estimates would be presented to the House in which would be reflected certain increases in the remuneration of the lower paid employees in the House. But they were absolutely tied hand and foot, and could not move increases. At the same time he felt certain that the majority of the hon. members felt that these men were not receiving adequate remuneration, and if it were possible for increases to be moved they would be carried by overwhelming majorities in each case. That being so, he thought the Minister in charge of the Estimates should indicate approximately what increases were going to be made.

said he thought the hon. member for Springs had misunderstood him. What he said was that the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year in respect of certain other salaries would be given effect to in the Supplementary Estimates. He made it perfectly clear that the Supplementary Estimates would deal with the salaries of the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Clerk of the House.

said he hoped that something would be done in regard to the salary of the Clerk of the Papers.

That has been done.

said he was also under a misapprehension. He understood the hon. member to say that the Supplementary Estimates dealt with the salaries of the messengers also. It was very awkward to discuss these matters. They were allowed to reduce but not to increase. For his part he was in favour of reducing the salaries of the big people; but he would like to see some of the lower paid men get more consideration. They found that in one House the salaries of the officiate were increased while in the other they were left the same as last year. They all stood for economy, but they also stood for justice, and it seemed to him that the men in this House should get the same consideration as the men in the other House. It was quite easy if the hon. member was going to refer the salaries of the Serjeantat-Arms and the Clerk of the Papers to the committee to refer the salaries of the messengers to the committee also.

said he thought that the very reference of the report mentioned was the salaries of the messengers. He would suggest to the hon. member that some committee should be allowed to consider references that were not considered last year.

said he was a little alarmed at the general talk of the desirability of raising salaries. Several instances had been pointed out, and hon. members had suggested increases of salaries without showing any reason whatever, or had shown very bad reasons, for them. They had had instanced the officers of this House as compared with the officers of the other House in corresponding positions. He had heard the case of the Clerk of the Papers in this House compared with the case of the Clerk of the Papers of the other House, and that seemed to him to be most unreasonable. The Clerk of the Papers of this House was a most excellent official, but the arguments for the reconsideration of his salary were baseless if they were founded on a comparison with the Clerk of the Papers of the other House. He had found that the Assembly Clerk of the Papers had been in the service for seven years, whereas the Senate Clerk of the Papers had been in the service for sixteen years. The latter was also the Committee Clerk and did all the shorthand work, whereas the Assembly Clerk did nothing of that sort. And the Senate Clerk was 34 years of age, whereas the Assembly Clerk was only 24 years of age. He did think that the salary of this official ought to be taken into comparison with officials of equal standing in the public service. And he was bound to say that if they took that into consideration this particular official had every reason to congratulate himself. On the Education Commission they had a most efficient secretary who was a graduate, an officer of ten years’ standing, and he drew nothing like the salary their Clerk of the Papers drew. It was most unwise of hon. members to get up in the House and, in an irresponsible way, suggest increases where there was no reason for them. The only point he wished to draw attention to if there were going to be increases, apart from the cases dealt with by the committee, was with regard to the chief messenger, because he found their chief messenger, who was receiving at the date of Union £30 a year more than the chief messenger of the Senate, was now getting £15 a year less. That seemed to him a hard case, and he trusted in framing the Supplementary Estimates this case would be considered. The clerk assistant did seem to him to get little as compared with the clerk assistant of the other House, in view of the work the former did, and the increases of these two officials had not been proportionate to the work they did. Their clerk assistant had also five years more service than the clerk assistant of the Senate. The Clerk of the House had had his salary reduced by £50 since Union, and he would like to ask whether that was not contrary to the Act of Union. It affected his pension, and that was where the thought it acted unjustly.

replied that the Clerk before Union had received £1,200 a year, £50 as taxing officer, and £300 house allowance.

Pensionable?

It was scarcely pensionable, because that was entirely within the rights of the House itself. The Committee of Standing Orders had dealt with that matter last year, and made a recommendation that his salary should be brought up to £1,500. The salary was only for the financial year 1913, and the sum which he should have drawn would figure on the Supplementary Estimates. As to the comparative salaries of the chief messengers of the two Houses, there was no doubt that the chief messenger of that House had a more onerous position than the similar officer in the other place, but the hon. member would have to bear in mind that there were other considerations, such as length of service. The chief messenger of the other House had 5½ years’ service, while the chief messenger of that House had 5½ years’ service. If any revision would have to take place, no doubt the House would refer the matter to a Select Committee.

said that if their salaries were fairly adequate for a start additions should be made for increase of service; but they took their stand on those benches, not so much on comparisons with the other House, as had been suggested by hon. members but purely for remuneration for work done: and when the Minister spoke of “other considerations,” they wanted him to include the number of hours these messengers had to work daily. He had pointed out that these men were working 85 hours a week, and if it was thought that their salaries were adequate, hon. members must have a very perverted idea of the value of work done. He thought that if the railway men’s salaries had been under discussion, they would have found the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) hand-and-glove with the hon. members on the cross-benches; but now they found him in his most economical frame of mind. (Laughter.) The Ministry had the power to get a Governor-General’s warrant to-morrow for the increase of these men’s salaries if they only wanted to do something.

put in a plea in favour of further consideration in the matter of the salary of the Clerk of the Papers. The Clerk of the Papers in the Commonwealth Parliament received £480 and of Victoria £380, as compared with £900 for the Clerk of the House of those Parliaments. Our Clerk of the Papers was a most efficient and obliging officer. He added that he was at one with what had been said in regard to the inadequate salaries paid to the messengers. He was sorry that the Government had not accepted the motion which was made at an earlier stage to refer these questions to the Internal Arrangements Committee. He thought it was bad policy on the part of the Government not to accept that motion.

said he did not think the speech of the hon. member ought to go unanswered. The hon. member was entirely mistaken about the salary of the Clerk of the Papers. He had received a salary of £145 a year from the old Cape House, and his salary had been increased by £105, and now stood at £250, so that, in proportion to salary, there was no officer of the House who had been so well treated. In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Springs as to what attitude he (Mr. Fremantle) would have taken if this matter had referred to the salaries of his constituents, he would only say that the hon. member had better refer to his record, and we would find no justification for that statement.

said he was not wrong in his statements as asserted by the hon. member for Uitenhage. The Clerk of the Papers in the old Cape House to whom he referred was not the present holder of that office, but the previous one, and he received, not £145 a year, but in his fifth year he received £240. He had not stated that the Clerk of Papers started at £240 in the old Cape House. The present Clerk of the Papers was, it is true, a young man, but that was all the more to his credit. He might not discharge all the duties discharged by the Clerk of the Papers of the Senate, who was also a committee clerk, and received £500. but his time was quite as fully occupied as that officer’s, owing to the greater pressure of Assembly work compared with that of the Senate.

said the question of the salary of the Clerk of the Papers was referred last session to the Minister of Finance, who said that he would take the matter into consideration. The Clerk of the Papers was one of the few officials of Parliament who received no increase when Union was brought about, and an injustice had been done him. Anyone who realised the good work done by this official knew that he was a most valuable servant.

said he ought to apologise almost for referring to anyone drawing less than £2,000 a year. (Laughter.) The Minister said that the difference was due to the fact that one of the messengers had 12 years’ service and the other 5½ years. In the other place the minimum was £180 and the maximum £200; in the Assembly the maximum was £180. What was the latter official going to rise to if he served 12 years?

The House will decide.

It will be rather undesirable for us to have a discussion on this matter every year. It would be just as well to settle it in a satisfactory manner and have done with it. There is no sense in the arrangement we have in this House.

suggested that some arrangement should be made by which the messengers should have nights off duty in turn. The messengers’ salaries were very low indeed.

moved the deletion of the amount of £6,000 set down for Hansard. He did not wish to be hard on the gentlemen who compiled these reports, but he had to point out that they were journalists connected with partisan newspapers. They were paid salaries and had to do the duties that they were called upon to do. Hansard in its present form was a useless book of reference. He was not alone in thinking that such was the case. There were complaints from all parts of the House in regard to this matter, and he did think that this was a point which they should earnestly consider. He at least, last session, had no idea that the Government intended to enter into a contract for a period of three years. He did not see how they were going to ascertain whether they were getting their money’s worth; there was no member in that House who could point out by what standard of measurement they could measure Hansard. They were paying for an unknown quantity. It might be a book of 1,000 or 2,000 pages. It cost the same. He went on to say that when the Select Committee went into the matter experts stated that for a few hundred pounds more they could have got an official Hansard, compiled by verbatim shorthand writers, free from any taint of partisanship. It would be produced by reporters who would be free from political taint. He submitted that they had only to read the articles in the newspapers which produced the Hansard to find out that they were partisan. He could not say, personally, whether the Dutch Hansard gave satisfaction, but he understood that hon. members did not consider that they were property reported in the Dutch organ. Hansard in its present form was useless. It would be better if they had no Hansard at this rate. He objected to any semiofficial version being put before the country as being the speeches of hon. members in that House. He knew hon. members who refused to have anything to do with the present Hansard. He submitted that they should cease paying the money until they could have an official Hansard.

said that upon the question before the House he had no personal grievance. At the same time he desired to support the hon. member for Commissioner-street, and very largely on the same grounds. He thought that in the contract itself they had quite evidence enough to condemn the whole thing. If the Hansard were to be useful at all, it should be correct and reliable and reasonable. The contract read that a full and correct abstract of every speech delivered should be taken down. It was very difficult for even an able and conscientious man to give a good abstract of another man’s speech unless he was acquainted with the subject, and when a man was expected to do that and was not acquainted with the subject of discourse, and when his work had to be blue-pencilled and sub-edited, it was difficult to know where you were or what you were likely to get. Another part of the contract read that the contractors undertook that the material part of every speech delivered should be reported and published; that all speeches should be impartially reported and published in the “Cape Times,” and without any regard to or consideration for the policy of such newspaper. As human nature was, and interests were, he thought it was almost impossible to carry that condition out. Anyhow, he was quite sure that hon. members would agree with him that that part of the contract had not been carried out. The material parts were very frequently left out. Occasionally he took pleasure in taking down speeches himself, and when he compared them with the official reports he found he might just as well compare Genesis with Revelation. He was quite prepared if the hon. member who interjected was in doubt to put in the text.

The contract provided that the material parts of every speech should be taken down, and should be published: that the reporting should be impartial. The reporting was not impartial. It may be impossible that it should be impartial. And the contract said that it should be altogether irrespective of policy. It was called reporting, but he wanted to point out that in some cases they got reporting, and in others they got composition, and very good composition at that; but in no such case was it entitled to be called reporting. Then the material parts were systematically, well, left out. Perhaps that was the easiest way of putting it. For instance the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. W. H. Andrews) took particular care to give the House some important information when dealing with the question of piecework. What did they find the next morning? These important points were all suppressed, and what was left was practically meaningless. He knew he would be told that members were to blame if their speeches were not corrected; but that was not the point. They were paying £2,000 a year for the privilege of members being allowed to correct their own speeches. He tried his hand at it and soon got tired. This arrangement was not satisfactory. They produced a Hansard not only for the use of hon. members today, but in order that they would have some reliable reference book in days to come. Did they get that? If they wanted a Hansard at all they wanted it for the use of the country. Supposing they had the right to correct their speeches and did correct them. Was that any good to them? The people read the newspapers the morning following, and they received their impressions from the first report published. They had no opportunity of correcting their impressions, and when a time came when an hon. member was challenged, and said, “Read Hansard,” the people would say, “Oh, yes, that is your own correction.” He was surprised that the members who were on the committee had so concluded the arrangement—made such an arrangement. He had no wish to take up time. (Hear, hear.) He had quite as much right to speak as any other member, and he meant to maintain that right. (Labour “Hear, hears.”) His point was plain. He believed they ought to have a Hansard and as one of the experts said when giving evidence before the Select Committee, let them have a complete Hansard or none at all. The so-called reporting had been partial. It had been incomplete. Frequently speeches had been perverted, and from the conscientious, intellectual standpoint, the Hansard was useless.

said that if hon. members had consulted the index to the Hansard, they would have found it inadequate, and not worthy of the House; and he hoped that those responsible for the production would see that a more adequate index was given in future. (Hear, hear.)

said that he hoped that the Minister was going to give some reason why he defended that vote. The hon. member who sat behind him had made a well-reasoned attack on that expenditure of £6,000. and either that sum was too little or too much. If a record of the speeches delivered in that House was worth giving, it was worth having a correct record, otherwise it was an expenditure of the taxpayers’ money which was not well justified. One of the Minister’s reasons for it had been that the public should have an early opportunity of reading an authentic account of the speeches delivered in that House, but he (the hon. member) said that the reports appearing in the newspapers were not an authentic account. He absolutely refused to take any responsibility for what appeared in Hansard, which was no record of their speeches, and individual members were merely laying up trouble for themselves because large numbers of people would believe it to be an actual record of words spoken in that House. There might be a vast deal of time wasted on speeches that were not worth recording—(hear, hear)—but it was their constituents who had to judge. He objected to two partisan newspapers being subsidised at the expense of the State, which had a tremendous advantage over other newspapers. He had maintained, and would maintain, that a really accurate record of the proceedings of Parliament should be kept, but they would not get it for £6,000, and subsidising two party newspapers like that to produce an altogether unreliable report was wasting the taxpayers’ money.

said that an accurate report of the discussions in that House they would not get for £6,000, or even £12,000 a year, and that was why the sessional committee of the previous year, after having gone into the matter for some months, he believed, finally came to the conclusion to recommend to the House that the matter should be left in the hands of the Government to make an agreement, and instructions were given that the Hansard should if possible be a newspaper one. That instruction was taken up by the Government, and they had made an agreement on the lines of a newspaper Hansard, which, of course, was by no means so full or so accurate as an official Hansard would be, but it was certainly far less expensive

And a fair one?

said that no doubt hon. members were not all satisfied with the report. It would be a miracle if they were. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But hon. members must remember that they had made certain stipulations, certain safeguards in regard to accuracy, etc., but he did not imagine that, even with those safeguards which they had inserted, the reports would be either full or always accurate. He thought hon. members must console themselves with this thought that few people read this Hansard either in the newspaper or book form. (Laughter.)

said that in the old Cape House the reports of the proceedings in the House used to be reprinted in the “Cape Times Weekly,” and members had an opportunity of correcting these reports before they were issued to the country, and to send correct reports to their constituents. He wondered whether it would not be possible to make a similar arrangement again.

said he would like it to be understood that, in what he had said, he was not blaming the Government at all, nor did he ask that the report should be full. But what he did ask, not for himself, but for others who spoke in the Lobby, but who had not the courage, possibly, to speak in the House, was that what was stated in the Press should be accurate as far as it went, that the sense should be there, and that the connection should be kept up. He knew it might be difficult, but, difficult as it was, there should be enough intelligence in South Africa to achieve that difficult task. If their speeches were printed exactly as they were spoken possibly sometimes they would be very ridiculous. (Hear, hear.) All he asked was that in the reporting the thought and argument should be conveyed so as not to mislead and that the essential points should not be left out. Why should they not adopt a plan that was adopted in Australia? The daily newspapers in the Colony with the smallest population, gave a verbatim report in the ordinary columns, but they had a daily Hansard during the session. They were charged extra for it, and he was confident that, if they did that in this country, the Hansard would be purchased by thousands in different parts of the Union.

asked what the extra £2,000 was for. It was said that the members had the right to correct their reports, but with this extra £2,000 the reports ought to be much better. They were no better, and did not satisfy their idea of a Hansard. The money was wasted. The public ought to be fully and clearly informed of what took place.

Am I to understand that the increase is in order to allow members an opportunity of correcting their speeches?

Yes, that is one of the considerations. Hon. members will bear in mind that last year we simply had the newspaper reports, which were put together and formed the Hansard, whereas now members have an opportunity of correcting their speeches and to add as much as they wish should be preserved for posterity. (Laughter.)

said that in that case it would be better if that extra sum were not paid. He did not blame the reporters. What they had to do was to make an abstract of the speeches. One knew how absolutely impossible it was to make anything like an absolutely accurate abstract at the express speed at which the work had to be done. (Hear, hear.) It was perfectly hopeless for hon. members to restore what they had said and it would be far better to let the reports go as they appeared in the papers. As far as his personal experience went it was absolutely hopeless to attempt to reproduce what one thought one had said.

said he was glad to hear what the last speaker had said, for that clearly showed that the reports were altogether impartial they might be impartially inadequate, but at any rate they were impartial. Having had some personal experience of this sort he did not think that Hansard was intentionally biassed—(cheers)—but when one got on to technical subjects, especially finance, it was hopeless the reporters being absolutely unable to give anything like a fair summary of the speeches. He was afraid they would find the same thing with regard to an official Hansard, for they had not in this country a large staff of journalists who had been born and bred up in the atmosphere of South African politics. But in England they had an enormous number of men who were politicians from their cradles. He did not believe that the reports were intentionally biassed. He did not think that the official report would be any improvement. He thought they should go on as they were, because he believed that as time went on they would find a great deal of improvement.

said he agreed with a good deal of what had been said by the hon. member for Uitenhage, but not with the conclusions at which he arrived. He pointed out that for six months the reporters were under the dictates of the editorial room, and then were expected to give an unbiassed report of Parliament. Then the present proposal was £6,000, which was different to the tenders that were submitted to the committee. He thought that the present form of Hansard resulted in useless expenditure. They were publishing two Hansards, one in English and the other in Dutch. That meant additional expense not only so far as translation was concerned, but in regard to printing. He would bring forward a suggestion which he had made on a previous occasion—that there should be one Hansard, and that the speeches should be printed in the language in which they were made. By doing this they would get better reports and save at least £2,000. The present state was very unsatisfactory. Members sometimes qualified a statement, and found that the statement appeared minus the qualification. He did not say that this happened to one man any more than another, but it did happen. He had seen some very accurate reports, and also some very mangled ones. Members were sometimes placed in awkward positions when they came before their constituents, and he did not think hon. members should allow such a state of affairs to continue. He would rather have an official Hansard on a proper basis or none at all.

said that Parliament gave authority last session, which instructed the Government to enter into a Hansard agreement. That had been entered into for four years. If Parliament sat for less than 100 days, the sum would be considerably less than £6,000. On the other hand, it might be more.

said he disagreed with the policy of subsidising a newspaper. If they were to have a correct abstract, he thought they would be far more likely to have it if they had a staff to take it down. He believed, despite what had been said, that there were plenty of men in South Africa who were willing to take on a job to report verbatim or give a correct abstract of what took place in the House. The Minister suggested the people did not read the Hansard, but that was rather drawing on the Minister’s imagination. He believed the people were reading it in larger numbers every year, and they had seen the results of their reading in the bye-elections. That was why they on the Labour benches were so anxious to be correctly reported, so that their speeches could be read by the working-class population. He did not think under the present circumstances they were getting value for the money.

said that regarding what he had said, he would like to explain that he could not say the newspapers deliberately misrepresented their speeches, because he seldom read them. What he said was that he objected strenuously to the public money being spent to give partisan newspapers an immensely enhanced value in the public eye with their notes in the House.

said that was giving the whole thing away, because the notes and comments were quite separate from the reports. He was sometimes roughly handled in the notes of a newspaper; but the reports were quite different and were quite fair. He thought there had been a good deal of cry about this because of the notes, and not because of the reports.

said the hon. member had entirely misapprehended him. The press which the hon. member supported was quite at liberty to do everything for its party’s gain; but he wanted to know why the general taxpayers should pay for enhancing their value.

hoped the Minister would report progress. Hon. members living at Sea Point had no special train to convey them to their homes and found it difficult to obtain vehicles. He moved that progress be reported.

The motion was negatived.

proceeding, said that they had an increased vote this year over that of last year, not only over last year’s vote in consideration of extraneous matter, but an increased sum put on the Estimates over and above the tenders of the particular papers at present fulfilling the contract. The tender last year for the Dutch Hansard was £2,800, and £2,600 for the English. The total of the tenders came to £5,400. and the amount on the present Estimates was £6,000. It would be interesting if the Minister could explain why another £600 had been added. Had the Ministry considered that matter or called for other tenders outside “Ons Land” and the “Cape Times”? Hon. members had expressed themselves pretty freely outside the House on the present system of conducting Hansard, and they on the cross-benches looked to some assistance from them, but they seemed to be afraid to express their views inside the House. (Dissent.) They could, if they only desired, insist upon the Government taking a certain action. Every hon. member of that House with a few exceptions had cause for complaint, and there was not the slightest doubt that in Special cases “special catering” had been done in reporting front benches fully, but the back benches on both sides had good reason for complaint, and no members had greater cause for complaint than hon. members on the cross-benches. What was the use of putting Estimates before the committee when they had not the right to say that that contract should be carried out? They had a right to require accurate reporting. He had hundreds of instances at home of perversions in the reports not only of his own speech, but those of other members. He would give one instance in connection with a speech of his own on the second reading of the Land Settlement Bill. “In conclusion,” it was stated—and the “conclusion” occurred halfway through his speech—“the hon. member made some remarks about Socialism and sat down.” (Laughter.) What they wanted was full and accurate reports.

The amendment to reduce the vote was negatived.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.