for construction of a bridge across the Vaal River at Christiana.

for legislation whereby the age of consent may be fixed at over sixteen years, or in no case under sixteen.

Report of the Director of Irrigation, 1911.

Report of Chief Conservator of Forests, year 1909, with report on Railway Sleeper Plantations; report by Inspector of Explosives on explosions at the factory of Messrs. Kynoch, on December 7, 1909; report on explosion of nitro-glycerine in a nitrating and separating house at the factory of Messrs. Kynoch, Ltd., on Wednesday, March 1, 1911, by Mr. W. H. Pay, Inspector of Explosives, with covering report by the Chief Inspector of Explosives; report of inquiry into an accident at the Cape Explosives Works, Somerset West, on Friday, October 15, 1911, by W. B. Jackson, Inspector of Explosives.

moved, in line 22, to omit “employer not being the” and in line 23 before “included” to insert “not”; in line 24, to omit “in the ‘Gazette,’” and in the same line to omit “of this Act”; and in line 26, before “mine,” to insert “such.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved to transpose clause 17 to follow clause 22.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 22,

moved at the end of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) to omit “would have been due to the miner had he not so died” and to substitute “the Board may decide but not exceeding in all an amount representing the difference between four hundred pounds and any sums already paid to the miner under this Act and under Act No. 34 of 1911.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved in sub-section (3), line 43, before “passage” to omit “free”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 25,

moved, in line 44, after “default” to insert “of payment”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 29,

moved in sub-section (1) to omit all the words after “Act” in line 29 to the end of the sub-section. The hon. member said he moved this because the clause, as it read, seemed to cast a slur upon the medical profession. There was nothing to debar any medical practitioner from serving as a medical adviser under the Act.

seconded the amendment. Apparently, although medical men were entitled to deal with matters of life and death and the health of the community they were not allowed to give an opinion upon these points.

said he would like to add his appeal to the Minister, because these men had a very intimate knowledge of the disease.

said he had been asked to insert this in the clause. There was a great responsibility resting with medical men, because it would depend upon their certificate whether a man would get £100 or £400.

said he would recommend the Minister to accept the amendment.

The question was put that all the words after “Act” proposed to be withdrawn stand part of the clause.

The amendment was declared negatived.

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

moved to add “or any employer” to make sub-section (1) of clause 28 read: “The Minister shall from time to time publish in the ‘Gazette’ a list of medical practitioners qualified to act as medical advisers under this Act, but no such medical practitioner while so acting shall be or become medical adviser to any Mine Benefit Society or any employer.” He said that the House must be consistent and exclude all medical practitioners who were in the employ of the mines.

in seconding the amendment, said he hoped that when the Bill went to another place the Minister would see that the objectionable part of the clause was removed.

said he would also ask the Minister to accept the amendment, because if he excluded the medical officers of one interested party, then it was only fair to exclude medical men who might be biassed by another interested party. He thought it was only right that they should be excluded. Like the hon. member for Denver, he appealed to the Minister to have the objectionable part of the clause removed in another place.

said that he could not vote for the amendment. It might be perfectly logical, but it would be ridiculous. They would not find a medical practitioner on the Rand who was not the medical practitioner of some employer, and if the amendment were passed it would mean that the Act would become a dead letter. He was sorry that the last amendment was not passed.

The right hon. gentleman cannot criticise the vote lust taken.

Never mind, I have said all I wanted to say. (Laughter.)

said that he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. Unlike the right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West, he was prepared to be logical. The right hon. gentleman was entirely mistaken as to what “employer” meant. It meant an employer under this Act. If the Minister were prepared to accept a recommendation from one body then he should be prepared to accept a recommendation from another body.

said he had made inquiries as to the effect of the adoption of this amendment. He found that there was one doctor of value who would be excluded—a doctor who had served on the Commission. He thought also that the word “employer” was also too wide. He could not amend that now, but he would see that it was amended in another place, and with that understanding he would accept the amendment, but he would have it rectified in another place.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 51,

moved, in line 41, to omit “miner or other” and in the same line, to omit “not being, and to substitute “who is not”; and in line 45, to omit “a miner or native labourer and to substitute “any person”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 35,

moved, in line 16, to omit “section” and to substitute “sections 22 and”.

seconded. Agreed to.

On clause 39,

moved to add at the end “and shall commence and come into operation on the first day of August, 1912.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved that the House go into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

said that considerable inconvenience was caused by the methods of the Government in skipping the Orders of the Day, as notified to hon. members of the House, and the intention of many hon. members was to discuss the Bill which was now removed, and they came prepared to do that. Unexpectedly the Minister had taken the step of skipping that and bringing forward the Public Service Bill. He wished to put some consideration before the House, which, he hoped, would induce the Minister to reconsider his attitude in connection with this Bill. Early in February this year the right hon. the member for Albany pressed the point that the Public Service Bill should be introduced during this session. Later on, there was considerable delay, and the question was raised in connection with the Estimates, and it was clearly indicated from that side of the House that they were not content to vote supplies until this measure, which had been promised for two years, and which was stipulated for in the Act of Union, should be introduced. Well, the Estimates were brought on after many months, and, after a still further long delay, which to many of them seemed to be unnecessary, this measure was now introduced in what they were told was the last week of the session. But, what was more serious, was that it was introduced now, coupled with a condition which the Minister knew was absolutely impossible for them to accept, that was the condition of compulsory bilingualism in the public service. (Hear, hear.) If he did not believe that the essential relations between the two peoples in this country had improved, he would spare the time of the House, and he would not make this appeal. He had several grounds for making an appeal to the Minister.

There was a provision in the Bill which said that the Public Service Board should satisfy itself about every man’s fitness to hold a position where a knowledge of the two languages was necessary. Now that, of course, was a very considerable advance on the position that obtained in different parts of South Africa before Union, and it was a considerable advance, he would not say a departure also, but an advance upon the position as they saw it at the time of the Convention, but for his own part he thought it was right. If he could not say that, then there would be no case, because he knew that the Minister and many other hon. members of the House and many people throughout the country took this position, and they said that they had got two languages in use in the country, they had got a public service of men who were supposed to deal with all the people in the country, and, therefore, the men in that service ought to know both languages. (Hear, hear.) If they started in the conditions of one country or one Colony, and if they had no Act of Union, they might discuss that —(hear, hear)—but he put it to everyone, first of all, to clear the ground, that they could not discuss this on the ground of efficiency alone, because they were tied by an honourable understanding, what he had often called the “covenant of peace between the races,” and he would show the Minister and hon. members, if they would only consider it with an open mind, that it was not necessary. But they did not want it; they were introducing something which would cause much trouble and division here, and they were not going to gain anything by it. A Public Service Board was going to be appointed for five years, removable only by Parliament. That Board was going to be appointed by the Government representing hon. gentlemen opposite. Now, surely, they could not think that the Public Service Board was going to do injustice, according to the lights of hon. members opposite. If they were content to give powers and discretion to that Public Service Board appointed by their political opponents, if they were willing to trust those men, believing in their assiduity and their sense of duty, knowing they were to be appointed by the Government and that they were going to trust them, surely it was a little thing to ask hon. members opposite also to trust them to use their common-sense and discretion. Whenever a man came up for appointment the Board would say such and such an appointment did or did not require a knowledge of two languages. They were going to be judges of that. Let them think of what they could do if they chose to abuse it. They Could say that every position required a knowledge of the two languages, but he did not believe that they were going to do so. The next thing the Board would be able to say was that this, that, or the other applicant was or was not qualified. Surely that was enough. Therefore the Board would have it in its discretion and in its power to say, first of all, whether a position required a knowledge, and, secondly, whether the applicant had a knowledge of both languages, so that the Board would deal entirely with all the cases where bilingualism was necessary. He put it to hon. members, what was the compulsory examination going to do? It was going to deal with the cases and impose bilingualism when bilingualism was not necessary. Let them remember this, that with the clause in the Bill as it stood, if a man passed his examination in the two languages he had got no security, he had got no status, he had got no claim for any position. He had got nothing, he had managed to escape one barrier and that was all; and then the Board would come on afterwards and say: “We do not know that this man knows enough Dutch or English for the post; we are going to test him.” A man who had been horn in any other country and who came to this country at 20 or 25 years of age did not pick up the language so easily as the man who had been born in the country, and they could imagine such a man going into the service and being appointed to an English-speaking centre for ten years. A vacancy then occurred in a country magistracy, and he applied for the post. Did they think that the Board ought to appoint that man to a district where he was to know how to speak and write Dutch? The Board would not do it. Nothing could he gained by putting in this compulsory clause.

If they were going to make this case on the grounds of efficiency alone they had better make up their minds that there was nothing solid in the National Convention, except the native franchise, which was safeguarded by a two-thirds majority, because if they were going to reconsider a question on the ground of efficiency, or economy, or justice, why give Natal and the Free State 17 members? Why not take their members away? Why not alter the Appellate Court at Bloemfontein? Why not touch the dual capital, for who could show that this led either to economy or efficiency? That argument struck at the very root of their conduct in the Convention. They could not raise it. But over and above all they gained nothing by it, but they invited a real catastrophe. They had been through two years of Union and it was not possible for a single member to say that they had arrived at a condition of parties which was going to be permanent. They started Union on the old lines, which were the racial lines. There was not a man in the House who was not sorry that they started on those lines. Why draw that line further? Why give one portion of the community the impression that because they had a majority they were trying to get away from what they actually agreed to in the Convention? An hon. member said they did not agree. Even if there were a doubt about it they could secure efficiency and good government in another way. They had all the safeguards in the clause dealing with the powers of the Board. Why in the name of common sense and patriotism raise this subject, which would cause so much trouble and confusion?

It was absolutely impossible for some of them to go back upon he assurances that they gave to South Africa and the assurances upon which they got Union accepted, the assurances that were given in good faith. It was impossible for them to go back. He did not want to raise arguments which would cause annoyance. His reason for raising the matter now was that before they got to that clause—and he hoped it would be a day or two before they did—he wanted to put to members the considerations which had struck him, so that when they got to it they might be able to realise that they could get everything that efficiency demanded and the trust of the people. Heaven knew that they had enough problems before them in South Africa and they could not afford to be divided. They had the clause about the Board, and in five years they could do everything that was necessary. Why put this in? It was totally unnecessary. And now there were other points. There was the case of efficiency to which he had referred and there was the case of policy, and policy to his mind meant good faith and common sense. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly convinced that all they needed was common sense and good faith. He had had to deal with men in Parliament and in the Convention who differed from him as widely as anybody could on policy, but he found no difficulty in agreeing on this. There was a way to be found, but the way was not to be found by coercion. (Hear, hear.) Long ago, he remembered, the words of President Kruger, who, when they pressed upon him that something ought to be done in the way of granting reforms, said: “Look here, my people can be led, but not driven.” The history of personal, political and religious liberty for a thousand years was as intimately associated with the English-speaking people as with the Dutch-speaking. They both stood at the top of the tree as champions of liberty. (Cheers.) They had one characteristic in common one was as obstinate as the other. (Laughter.) They could not be driven, but there were no such practical people in the world. If a case were put to their reason, both were capable of understanding it and of finding a way.

When they knew that they had to live together, whether they liked it or not, common sense told them that they must find a way, and history told them that coercion had failed in the world—it had failed in this country on both sides. Let them learn something from history and see if they could not find a way of settling the difficulty, as he was certain they could. What was wanted was common sense. Another consideration was good faith. He was not charging any hon. members with breach of faith, but they did agree to certain things in the Convention, and in a very clumsy way they tried to express themselves. He supposed that when people took up the Convention resolutions they put their own interpretations upon them. But those interpretations differed, and they certainly did not agree with their ideas. He did not want to put forward his own ideas, but to put the case as it stood in writing from the champion on this subject on the other side—his hon. friend the Minister of Justice. They found that there was a way of dealing with the difficulty. They had had a discussion on the railway circular and the Minister of Justice said that the version which he (Sir Percy) gave was correct.

The Minister was in agreement with the official minutes, and the book on the National Convention by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton). He (Sir Percy) was referring to a document which the Minister of Justice acknowledged was his (General Hertzog’s) original proposal for settling the language question. In it was this provision: “And that every appointment under the Union shall be made with due regard to the equality of the two languages, and to the right of every citizen of the Union to avail himself of and to claim either language as the medium of communication between himself and any officer or servant of the Union.” Well, the Minister of the Interior had explained in what respect he thought that clause differed from the compulsory clause in the present Bill. The Board would have to consider a man’s qualifications in Dutch and English. The compulsory examinations took in all the races, and they all had to qualify. Why did the Minister of Justice withdraw his motion in the National Convention? Not because he (Sir Percy) objected to it, because he never saw it until afterwards. The Minister of Justice withdrew it because his own intimate associates who were as keen as he was in defending the rights of the Dutch people and language said: “This is not liberty but compulsion, and it goes too far.” To do the Minister full justice, he withdrew it and modified it. If hon. members took the records of the National Convention, they would find that this was modified until they came to the position in which compulsion was absolutely barred. Of course, they must feel that in some way or other they were getting back to the position which they refused to accept in the Convention. Here was the record and here was the draft Bill which put the matter into law. Was it conceivable that the people when they knew the circumstances would be able to avoid saying, “This is not keeping good faith.” (A laugh.) The hon. member (Mr. Myburgh) laughed. He (Sir Percy) did not know what that meant.

You know quite well what I mean.

said the hon. member barked at him, but he (Sir Percy) did not know what he meant. He would be glad if the hon. member would give him something more intelligent than a bark. The hon. member’s interruptions were not worthy of the hon. gentleman himself.

He (Sir Percy) had been asked why provision had not been made for the Civil Servants of the future? Why were they not safeguarded? The Civil Servants at present under the Union were safeguarded, why not future Civil Servants of the Union? They had the statement of Mr. Steyn that they never wanted to force their language down the throats of people, and they also had the statement of the Minister of Justice that he did not want compulsion. Now, in the working of the service, on several points they might find a few difficulties; surely it would not be a matter of enormous expense to see whether it was necessary to have an interpreter or bilingualists who could be put in the different offices? He was in favour of having bilingualists in the offices wherever necessary, but it was impossible to accept this compulsion. In his mind, it was not justified either on the points of efficiency or policy. Here they were to-day with the necessity upon them of doing big work—many things had yet to be done, and so little had been done. Surely this was one of the worst things that could be done. The Board could deal with this matter; it was much better to submit it to the Board. Had they not always asked that the Board should have more powers, even more than hon. members opposite wished them to have? Give the Board the power to say whether these bilingualists were necessary, but they were not prepared to accept compulsion. Another ground of argument was that unless they put compulsion upon the English-speaking people, they would never learn Dutch. That was not a defensible position to begin with. They had no right to compel people to learn Dutch as long as they did not have the opportunity of learning it. They would have the opportunity of learning it, so as to pass their examinations, and they would know if they chose the Civil Service for a profession that Dutch would be necessary in their qualifying examinations; in fact, the practical qualification would be a useful knowledge of both languages. If through neglect or carelessness they omitted to learn Dutch, then they would know that the Service Board would have them marked, but coercion was not justified and was not necessary. In Cape Town and other areas they had opportunities of learning Dutch, and these were largely represented on the Convention, but there were other large areas also largely represented where they did not hear Dutch every day, such as the Witwatersrand and Natal, and although people there might be able to learn to read and write Dutch, they would not be able to speak it. It was absolutely impossible for them to learn to speak Dutch in Natal or the Rand. Again, they had to go for teachers of Dutch in the main to Holland, because they could not get educated men in South Africa at the price that was paid. Educated sons of the people in South Africa did not aspire to be teachers; there were not enough teachers in South Africa to teach Dutch. They knew that, at the time they entered the Convention, that Natal and other large centres would never have agreed to these terms. These terms were refused by the colleagues of the hon. gentleman, who put it to them that he did not mean compulsion in any sense of the word. If we were asked why we did not stipulate for something in writing, people in the Convention would have said that we were impossible people to deal with, and that we could not trust them, and they would have got up and left the Convention, as they would have been perfectly justified in doing. He believed it only required these facts to be weighed to see that there was a better way of doing things. Give a fair chance to the Board, and common sense and good faith would evolve a cure for the present evil. He would beg the Minister of the Interior to use his influence on this matter. The Minister had the reputation of being tolerant and broad-minded and not unduly desirous of pressing this one-sided view. He did not ask for a pledge, he did not want either a reply or a discussion, the matter lay entirely in the hands of the Minister. They could not get this through without many hard things being said and done, which would not be for the good of the country. Let common-sense and good faith be brought to bear on the matter, and they would find a solution.

could not agree with the previous speaker, whose explanation of the spirit of the Convention, he contended, could not possibly be accepted by him. Surely, he argued, there could be no injustice in compulsory bilingualism for Civil Servants. Last year hon. members on the other side demanded bilingualism even for field cornets. He hoped other members of the Convention would also give their views on this matter, so that Parliament might be able to come to a decision on the subject. Surely the responsibility in a matter of this kind could not be left to the Public Service Board—it was a question to be settled once and for all by Parliament. Hear, hear.) He thought in a country such as this, bilingual Civil Servants were essential; it was only fair that the wishes of the community at large should be considered, so that a Dutch-speaking citizen could have his requests replied to in Dutch or an English-speaking citizen in English. He did not see that there was any question of compulsion. It was not like the case of compulsion in regard to education—because it was free to anyone to enter the Civil Service. He, therefore, hoped that the clause in the Bill would be agreed to, and that other members of the Convention would express their opinions.

said he hoped that the suggestion of his hon. friend opposite (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) would be followed, and that they would not at this stage launch forth into a general discussion on the language question. He thought they would have ample opportunity to do so at a later stage. If the object of his hon. friend was to give a little more time over this clause, then he was prepared to allow it to stand over until they had disposed of the other clauses of the Bill, and perhaps wisdom might come with time, but he did not think the suggestion was really feasible that they should, in a matter like this of the dual languages, constitute themselves into something of the attitude of a Public Service Commission, in whose hands would be the fate of everybody concerned. He understood from his hon. friend that he simply wished to protest, and he had done so in a mild and dignified speech, against this subject being discussed now, and they could leave it there. When they came to the clause, they might deal with it either in its proper order or leave it over until a later stage—when they came to the end of the Bill. He did not think it was necessary to go into it now, and he hoped they would not have a general discussion on it now.

The motion was agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill.

moved in line 7, to omit “and”; line 8, after “Division” to insert “and”; after line 8 to insert the following new paragraph (c): “(c) the services (as defined in section 37),” and in line 26, after division” to insert “or who are not members of the services as defined in section 37. He said that the amendment did not alter the Bill.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 4, Qualifications for appointments in the administrative and clerical division,

said he wanted some information with regard to the distinction made between the sexes.

said that in sub-section (3) of section 3, provision was made for the framing of regulations in respect of employment and grading of female officers.

said that there was a reference to appointments in the executive branch of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but there was no definition of the executive branch of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and if the Bill remained as it was all the clerical assistants in the Post Office would commence on the third grade scale under the first schedule. He thought that the same would apply to the Customs Department in a greater or lesser degree.

said that the question presented some difficulties. The Select Committee sought the advice of the Postmaster-General, and after a great deal of trouble they finally put in sub-section (2), and in dividing the administrative and clerical divisions they had put in part of those belonging to the postal service. Then sub-section (4) of section 4 was also inserted.

said he was not satisfied with the answer. The point was how much all this was going to cost. If they were going according to the schedule they would find this a very costly service.

pointed out that sub-section (4) covered the point that had been raised by the hon. member.

On clause 5, Grades and salaries, etc.,

moved in line 37, after “grades” to insert “or altering any grade”; in line 38, after “of” to insert “any” and to omit “departments and offices” and to substitute “department or office”.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 6, Grades of persons on first entry, etc.,

moved to omit “the higher grades” and to substitute “any higher grade.”

The amendment was agreed to.

raised a point that was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

asked why it was that a man with a B.A. degree could go straight to the second grade? The point was that a man had to prove qualifications which he said he had, and also his fitness to go into the second grade. Why should a B.A. have preference?

said they should not set too high a standard for the examination. At the same time they wanted to get in a small number of highly educated young men. This was an inducement to these young men to join. It was a move in the direction of efficiency.

said he was satisfied so long as these men did not walk into the second grade above the heads of others. He only wanted to be clear on the point.

said he regretted the principle on which entrance was obtained to the service, but thought it an improvement on the old system. These examinations were a delusion and a snare, and there were some matriculated students who could hardly spell. The only fair way was the competitive examination, and he hoped it would come in the next few years. These people came wanting jobs, and it was as distasteful for others to have to job them in as it was to the general taxpayers of the country. They would have these people, their aunts and cousins and uncles, knocking at the door. There was only one remedy for all the trouble.

New clause 7,

moved to omit “a qualifying” before examination, and to substitute “an”.

The amendment was agreed to.

The new clause was agreed to.

New clause 8,

moved after “clerk” to insert “other than is expected by sub-section (3) (b) of section 2”; in line 48 to omit “qualifying”.

The amendments were agreed to.

On new clause 9, Special qualifications in respect of Magistrates and Public Prosecutors,

said that in the old Cape Civil Service Act there was a provision that members of the Civil Service who passed the LL.B. examination should have certain special privileges. There were some people who spent their spare time in preparing themselves for this examination, and who had not qualified for their final LL.B. He wished the Minister would take those cases into consideration and make some sort of provision for them.

said he would make a note of what the right hon. gentleman had said.

asked how they were to make provision of this kind? He added that this Bill was being rushed through committee, and he protested now against the pace at which it was being rushed through.

On new clause 11,

said that he hoped the Minister would consent to this clause standing over.

said that he had no objection to the clause standing over. He moved accordingly.

Agreed to.

On clause 10,

moved to add at the end “and provided further that no transfer shall interfere with such person’s existing and accruing rights as at the 31st day of May, 1910.” He said he would put it to the Minister whether under the Act of Union it was fair to say to a man that he had to accept new conditions of service. All he moved was that in the case of such compulsory transfers, where a man, for instance, had been working under a certain set of conditions for years before the Act of Union, if the Government came to him and said, “We want to put a completely new set of conditions upon you,” that man should have the right of saying “I am not going; I am going to retire, with my full pension rights maintained.” Unless the words he had suggested were put in, a grave injustice would be done to a certain class of men.

said that surely his hon. friend did not want to lay down that they were going to perpetuate that sort of provincial distinction. (Hear, hear.) This provincial distinction had been nothing but a curse. If a man were in the Civil Service he must go wherever he was sent, and no questions asked. (Hear, hear.)

said that the right hon. gentleman was not fair in what he said. These men were not engaged for the Union service. They were engaged for the Cape Colony, or the Transvaal, or the other old Colonies. He simply wanted an opportunity to be given to them to refuse to accept Union conditions, to leave the service. He did not wish to perpetuate the provincial distinction at all.

said he did not think they should accept an amendment like this at this stage. If the hon. member turned to section 75, he would see that in the last sub-section they had made a general saving of existing and accruing rights. They must not drag in “existing and accruing rights” at every stage of the Bill. No one’s rights were touched by the provisions in the Bill.

wished to know if the position the Government took up was the same as that adopted by the Minister, viz., that compulsory transfer was not a breach of the Act of Union.

That is the interpretation of the Government.

The amendment was negatived.

asked the Minister, when he made transfers, to first see whether he could not promote the men in post offices, the work of which had grown and this necessitated a larger staff.

On clause 11,

moved in line 38, after “that” to insert “from causes within his own control”. The mover’s idea was to prevent the dismissal of a man who had become unfit through the discharge of his duty, but who might be well enough to discharge some other duty.

said he would agree to the amendment if it was preceded by the words “or that he is”. He mentioned that there were cases of men vegetating, and it was better that they should be got rid of, for some men became more stupid as they grew older. (Laughter.)

The amendment as thus amended was agreed to.

did not think the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town. Castle, would meet the case he (Mr. Alexander) had referred to.

said a man might be incapable of performing the duties of his present post, although he might well be able to do the work of a less onerous position.

was sorry that the Minister had accepted the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Alexander), for the result would be in some cases that although a man might be unfit to discharge his duties for reasons for which the man himself was responsible, he would still be kept in the Service.

My hon. friend (Mr. Alexander) has beaten me on one clause, but I have him on the other. I don’t know why he is satisfied.

moved to omit “them” in line 39, and after “efficiently” to insert “any duties which may be assigned to him.” His point was not that he wanted to get rid of a man, but a man must be incapable of performing his duties to be discharged. He wanted the man to get other duties if he were unfit for his present duty.

said that as to duties which might be assigned, a telegraph operator might be asked to become a telephone operator, and could not carry out those duties. He might be asked to become a Minister. (Laughter.)

He could do that. (Laughter.)

said that there was a distinct difference between becoming unfit for certain duties and becoming incapable, because in the former case a man might be quite fit for another duty. If a man were not discharged from the service, he felt that he was protected. If the man were incapable of doing any work the Minister would not keep him, of course. The hon. member for Liesbeek was introducing something which might be used in a manner entirely different from what was intended.

Agreed to.

On clause 12, What is misconduct by an officer,

said that the words “speaking in public,” in sub-section (e), were rather ambiguous. There were several officials who had their organisations, such as the postal and telegraph clerks, who held meetings, at which the Press was sometimes present. If they spoke at such meetings, was that speaking in public? Under that law, it might be held to be a breach of discipline. He thought that what the Minister meant was an ordinary public meeting. As to “non-official publications,” in line 24. was a publication, such as the “South African Postal and Telegraph Herald,” the official publication of the postal and telegraph clerks, an official or a non-official publication? It was non-official, as far as the Government was concerned, but was the official organ of that organisation, and had been in existence for many years, was very well run indeed, was edited by the secretary of the organisation, and registered at the G.P.O. as a newspaper. The same question applied to the official organ of the Labour party. He did not think that it was the intention of the Minister to debar Civil Servants from writing to these publications. He moved as an amendment in line 23 to omit “in public” and to substitute “at a meeting of the public”; in line 24, to omit “non-official in line 25 after “publications” to insert “of a like nature”.

said that he had no objection to the second part of the amendment, but he did have some objection to the first part. Would the hon. member say “speaks at public meetings”?

Yes.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved the deletion of sub-sections (e), (f), and (g), which, he said, were all “pure rubbish.” (Laughter.) Was there any conceivable harm in any member of the Civil Service standing up in a public meeting and speaking, for example, on missions to the upper classes in China? (Laughter.)

That is not a political subject.

said that the welfare of the higher classes in China certainly was. He would like the hon. member to define what a political subject was. Why on earth, because a man was a Civil Servant, should he not have the right to speak in public, like any other citizen? Then, again, why could he not belong to a political organisation, like any other citizen? He thought that his hon. friends knew of cases where a Civil Servant belonged to a political organisation, although, perhaps, not formally.

He ought not to.

Why not? That was another relic of bygone times. If hon. members still took the view that in private employ a man should never utter political sentiments which were at variance with those of his employers, then there might be something to be said for the other thing. Continuing, the hon. member said that surely men in the post office had the right to form their own association.

What about Australia?

said the hon. Minister had produced something about Australia of an antiquated nature which had been repealed when another and better party came into power there. People in the Post Office in Great Britain were allowed to form their own association.

moved the deletion of sub-section (g), which read as follows: “Becomes a member of any association or society or union, the objects whereof are to secure advantages to officers by the exercise of political or undue influence.” He said at present there was an organisation connected with the posts and telegraphs which was well conducted, and, if this were carried out, it would be illegal to belong to it. He had, on a former occasion, in the last session of the Union Parliament, headed a deputation from this association to the Minister. A great many of the members of Parliament were in favour of recognition of this society; in fact, out of a House of 121, there were 74 who had said they were in favour of recognition, and now they were asking this same Parliament to say that this association was illegal. The Civil Servants had got several organisations, and they never had caused the slightest inconvenience or trouble to the Government. They had been conducted in a proper manner. Although the Minister of Railways and Harbours had not acknowledged the Railwaymen’s Association, still he had not introduced a similar clause into the Railway Bill. It was all very well to say that they did not recognise these associations, but they were there all the same, and there they would remain. (Hear, hear.) The present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, when he was seeking the suffrages of the electors to the old Cape Parliament, said he was in favour of the recognition of the men’s association, but when he found himself in the position of Minister he said he was not. They were not solemnly asking the House for recognition by means of this amendment, but surely they were not asking the House too much to allow this association to continue in existence. Another point that he would like to draw attention to was what was meant by “undue influence”? Was political influence undue influence? Did it mean that if a postal clerk brought a matter to the notice of his member of Parliament, that would be undue influence? He had a large number of Civil Servants in his constituency, and, if they circularised him, or came to him about anything, that would be a serious matter. He thought this was a dangerous and unfair sub-section, anl hoped that the Minister would delete it.

hoped the Minister would stick to his guns. They should not really encourage Civil Servants to become members of associations to secure advantages to themselves by political and undue influence. The hon. member who had last spoken asked them to tell him where this would lead to. He would tell him where it would lead. It would lead to very much the same thing that they found in America, where members of Parliament there promised advantages to Civil Servants in order to get their votes. It had been asked where these people would go with their grievances; well, it had been specially laid down that there was to be a Civil Service Commission which would go into them, and if necessary bring them before Parliament.

said that in the United States not only did they have official recognition of these societies, but there was a penal clause, punishing anyone who tried to prevent anybody joining them. The Minister of Railways had said something about Australia, but that was a regulation of the most conservative of States—New South Wales—and had nothing to do with the Commonwealth. That regulation did not seek to prevent these associations, but only to prevent an abuse of their powers. He himself had had a Magistrate presiding at one of his meetings, and he had no doubt the meeting was better conducted because of his presence. He had tried hard to see what this clause was getting at. It seemed to be aiming at nothing and hitting the bull’s eye. (Laughter.) The clause would prohibit a man from joining the Good Templars, for they tried to exercise political influence in the only way they could by canvassing the members. Church Councils did the same thing, so that Civil Servants would not be allowed to join such bodies.

hoped the committee would accept the amendment. The hon. member for Victoria West had drawn a lurid picture of what would happen if the clause remained in. But he was talking about political influence being exercised by Civil Servants upon members of Parliament. The clause, however, was intended to prevent Civil Servants from forming themselves into a union for the protection of their own interests. He hoped the committee would take the broader view. The only way to avoid labour wars was to have strong combination for the men, whose representatives could meet the employers and get what they wanted by bargaining. The same thing was necessary, if not to the same extent, inside the Government service. He would like to see unions properly recognised by the Government: they were going on the wrong track if they went against these men being allowed to form their own union.

Might I ask the hon. member to explain what he means by bargaining? Did he mean that they could approach the members of Parliament to increase their pay: a worse thing could hardly be imagined. It was not a simple union; the clause said “to exercise a political or undue influence.” But that was exactly what the hon. member for Fordsburg described as bargaining. It would have the effect of getting the Civil Servants their salaries raised It had happened in this country: during the election times the Civil Servants would ask “How much will you give us?” That would be a bargain. He hoped the committee would adhere to what had been put in by the majority of the Select Committee.

said the Civil Servants were not the only people who had tried to form themselves into an association for the purpose of trying to get something for themselves.

These people are paid by the taxpayers.

said the clause was directed against any kind of Civil Servants forming themselves into a union for the protection of their own interests. If it had been directed against their using political or undue influence there would have been a clause saying that no individual Civil Servant could exercise political or undue influence.

said that the hon. member for Victoria West had distorted his meaning with regard to his reference to bargaining. He never intended to say that he was in favour of Civil Servants making disgraceful bargains with members of Parliament.

You used the expression “bargain.”

Yes, because trade union bargaining had been the best way of settling disputes. The same thing applied inside the Government, and the Civil Servants would arrange with the departments employing them and not by approaching candidates or members of Parliament. The misunderstanding had been, perhaps, because he had not expressed himself well. He agreed with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg that the clause was intended to suppress the union.

said he was surprised at the speech of his hon. friend. He said the bargaining that the hon. member for Victoria West referred to was not in his mind and that the difficulties of the Civil Servants could be solved by the departments. What would be the state of affairs if there was a threat to strike, what was going to be the position? He could not conceive a state of affairs worse than these Civil Servants banding themselves together in order to bargain with the departments. The case of the public servants was entirely distinct from that of the ordinary workers, who protected themselves by joining a trade union. He was in favour of trade unions, but he did not want to see political corruption and the possibility of the whole machinery of the State being brought to a deadlock; he did not know what were the objects of this postal union, but he did not think the object was to protect themselves by the exercise of political or undue influence; that was where the stress was laid. If they had bound themselves for such a purpose then it was the duty of the State to step in.

asked if the hon. Minister could define “political influence”? Surely if a number of men formed a committee and sent in a petition to the head of the department that would not be binding themselves together. They could not bring their grievances to the notice of the Minister unless there was an organisation of some kind. Did the hon. Minister know of any great organisation that had not got a union to-day? He hoped that the Minister would accept the amendment. As far as he knew, the Postal and Telegraph Association had not been formed for the purpose of thwarting the Government. The hon. member for Victoria West always held up to them the traditions of the good old House of Commons, but he (the speaker) would point out that that body had accepted an organisation of this character. Why should the right hon. member be inconsistent on this point alone?

said that all the points that had been raised by the hon. member who had just spoken could have been raised at an earlier stage. The Minister had said that the only point was that of undue influence. How paltry that was. The Minister took one view of this influence, the hon. member for Fordsburg, who might occupy the Minister’s place one day, took another view, and they on those benches took still another view. This talk of party was humbug, and was about the limit. Any hon. member who had stood at election times had been asked whether he was in favour of this or that, and the way the questioner would vote depended on the answer. Then why should not a Civil Servant ascertain whether a candidate was going to take a reasonable interest in his affairs? If it came to that, he was understood to say, why not take the vote away from the Civil Servants altogether.

was understood to observe that that was done once.

When?

In the 18th century.

said that that was just what his hon. friend would like—to have the days of the 18th century back. The Minister had talked about being dragooned, but that had been the argument ever since Trades Unions were established. Whenever men asked for anything it was always said that they were trying to dragoon their employers. Such organisations, he thought, conducted on proper lines, would help the Minister to a great extent. He asked the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, not to be so modest, but to give to the House the names of those hon. members who were so anxious to secure recognition for these men last year. He suggested that before they went to a division he should call the roll. (Laughter.)

said that Burke, who was, perhaps, a greater authority on constitutional law than the hon. member for Jeppe and his friends—(laughter)—was responsible for taking away the vote. It happened in England.

What stage of Burke?

Don’t burke it. (Laughter.)

In his palmy days. Continuing, he said that it was in connection with the Custom House officers. They numbered hundreds of thousands, and they influenced elections in their own interests, and against the interests of the people of the country. Don’t let them get to that stage in this country. He would say to the hon. member that he was treading on very dangerous ground. It took courage for anybody to stand up nowadays and support a Trades Union. They saw the effect of the abuse of Trades Unionism in England; it was breaking down their great country.

Question.

There is no question about it. You have been talking about Trades Unions, and I am showing you the result of them. It is the abuse of Trades Unionism that is the trouble; I believe to a certain extent in Trades Unions. Continuing, he said that if they encouraged their men to do things of this sort, one of these days it would be found necessary for them to resort to violent means of dealing with trouble. He was one who had found Civil Servants a very good body of men, and one who was anxious to do what he could for them. He hoped that the Minister would stand to the position which he had taken up.

said that he was in favour of the amendment, pointing out that they had now in this country many thousands of men in the employ of the Government. He asked any man with common-sense if they supposed they were going to stop these men forming themselves into associations by this clause? These men would form their associations in spite of it, and the trouble would be that things would be done underground. Now, it was far better if these things were done openly. Continuing, he said that he had met the young men of the Postal Association, and found them a reasonable and honourable body. They did not rebel against low pay or long hours so much as against the pin-pricks which were inflicted by the men who were just above them. These were not slaves of the Department, but were young men of education and common-sense. He thought that associations of this kind should be encouraged, so long as they did nothing which was contrary to good government. Who was to decide what was undue or political influence?

said that when in the Select Committee he supported the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. The object they had in view was attained that afternoon, when the Minister made the statement that this particular association, to which allusion had been made, did not come within the scope of this section. He asked the Minister whether he thought that any association of Civil Servants was going to be so foolish as to say that it was going to attain certain advantages by undue influence? If not, then it did not come under the sub-section. If no association was so foolish as to do a thing of that kind, then the clause was unnecessary and inoperative, and as it appeared in the Bill was a danger, because it encouraged those in authority to stretch its provisions. If properly construed, he did not think the section would harm any association; if improperly construed, it would harm any association, no matter how good the work it was doing.

said that if this had nothing to do with the Postal Association, then it meant nothing at all. If it meant nothing at all, then it should go out of the Bill. If it meant the Postal Association, then he also hoped it would go out. Hon. members, he thought, should get at the exact meaning of the clause. It was said that the interests of their association were contrary to those of the State. What grounds had the right hon. gentleman (Mr. J. X. Merriman) for making a statement of that kind? He (the hon. member) had had some experience of associations of this kind; and they had had a statement made in the House by a Minister, speaking in regard to an association of this kind, that he was very much astonished to find that all the complaints by these people were not demands for more money; as a fact only about half were. He would like to call the attention of hon. members on his side of the House to the other half of the demands. He was bound to say that the other half of the demands were due to the men being unable to get fairly treated in the public service. He did not want to bring in any considerations which they desired to keep out, but he thought it was fair that hon. members should know that a very large proportion of these demands were due to there being in the service a large number of people understanding only one language, and not being able to make themselves clear to those in authority. There were cases where men were Dutch-speaking men only, and because their superiors could not understand Dutch, they had got into trouble, and he did think that hon. members should be slow in interfering with an association of this kind, that was purely beneficent. Hon. members were making it impossible for people of their blood to go into the service, and they were handing them over to the tender mercies of some officials who were not able to do what was right for them. As for what had been said about England, he would only like to say a few words. A right hon. member referred to Burke. He would remind the right hon. member that at the same time that he was making those suggestions, he was also defending rotten boroughs and a franchise law which would, disfranchise a number of the hon. members of this House. An association of this kind, was resisted in England by the Government for a long period of years, but afterwards the Government came to the conclusion that they were making a mistake, and they decided to recognise it, and there had been only one opinion since then. Everyone who had spoken, representing the English Post Office, had said that the recognition of that association had been of advantage to England. Now they were discussing not whether the association should be recognised, but a proposal to suppress it altogether. The Minister of the Interior was going to institute a sort of a pogrom to suppress it.

What is a pogrom?

A sort of Russian measure to stop this.

But what is a pogrom?

I am afraid my Russian pronunciation is far from perfect. Proceeding, he said that to talk of violent measures and disfranchisement, whereas they were discussing whether they should allow men to do what they had done in the past, seemed to him as if they were going back, and that was most undesirable. A conflict was now invited; a conflict with a large number of employees, and he could not think that was a course a wise employer would take. It was not proposed in the Railway Bill that the men should not be allowed to join an association of this kind, and it seemed to him the Minister of Railways and Harbours had so far taken the right course. However, he hoped that the committee would not adopt a measure of this sort that was against the interests of the country and the employees, and certainly against the interests of hon. members on that side of the House.

said he could not realise why the Minister had not accepted this organised body, able to express the views of the employees of the Post Office. As hon. members knew, there had been various meetings held throughout the country, and it must have been known that grievances must have existed throughout the postal service; and the way in which they were expressed was very moderate. At the present moment in the postal service there were a good many individual grievances, and he felt that instead of that going on, if the Minister would recognise this body as an official body and meet the heads of it, they would be able, in half-an-hour, to make it perfectly clear to the Minister what was required. He knew perfectly well that it had been said that this was a political body. There was no wish or desire in any way to interfere with politics; in fact, they had a pamphlet which came out monthly, and there times without number it was expressed definitely that politics were not their desire; but their desire was to get recognition to deal with their own grievances and act between the employees in the Post Office and the Government. He hoped the hon. Minister would see his way clear to accept them. It was an association well worthy of consideration, and he thought to-day its membership included nearly all the employees in the Post Office.

said that ever since he had had anything to do with politics and known anything about a constituency which included a number of Post Office workers, it had been the custom for a gentleman seeking election to meet representatives of the Post Office and discuss their grievances and their wishes, and everybody had done it ever since, he supposed, the Post Office officials had had the vote. So there was nothing new about this. It had always been done. They might not have had an association called by name an association; but they had sent their representatives and nobody had considered that a man had done anything wrong in meeting those representatives. Therefore, it seemed to him that the whole clause as it stood was going much too far. As far as he knew this association, he thought they would be the last to suggest that they should be formed for the purpose of exercising undue influence, and he had never heard that that was their idea or object. Therefore he would move the deletion of the words “political or.” He thought that an association formed for the purpose of exercising undue influence could not be allowed to exist; but as far as political purposes were concerned—well, they were only pretending to hide what had been done since the Post Office officials had the vote. If the words “political or” were left out he thought the clause might stand.

said he had moved the deletion of the clause, and if the hon. member would explain what meaning it would have with the amendment carried out he would be better able to say whether he would be able to withdraw his amendment for the deletion. It seemed meaningless to put in a clause stating that men were not to bind themselves together to exercise undue influence. What was undue influence?

It might be a suicide club.

Certainly we would object to that.

said he would remind the hon. member that they had got the term “undue influence” in other Bills. “Undue influence” was a very well-known term to those who had to deal with elections, and if the hon. member would take the trouble to look up the Acts he would find that it had a very definite meaning.

twitted hon. members, who not so long ago had raised a hullaballoo about field-cornets taking part in politics, with inconsistency. Although he had signed a petition for the recognition of the Postal Association, certain things had happened since last year which had rather scared him. What had occurred in Johannesburg, he asked, when men, prepared to work, had been called “scabs”? A most unsatisfactory position had then been created, and such a state of affairs should not be allowed in the Civil Service. Of course, it would be unreasonable to close the mouths of Civil Servants altogether. But the question which was foremost in his mind was whether the Civil Servants were now trying to create a new principle. If that was the case, he would have to vote for the clause, but he would first like some information on the matter. He was opposed to combinations which took the form of trade unions.

referred to a deputation in the early stages of the session to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, at which the grievances of the men were laid before him. It was not a wise policy, he said, to deprive any man in the country of his political rights; this he could not help regarding as a limitation of their rights. He hoped that these men, who were exceptionally intelligent men, would not be kept down in their political aspirations.

said he was not disposed to allow the reckless charge made by the right hon. member for Victoria West to go unchallenged. The right hon. gentleman objected to any union on the ground that these unions were the cause of trouble. (Hear, hear.) He had challenged the history of the hon. member for Jeppe. The hon. member for Jeppe may have been wrong in his history; at the same time, if he were wrong, it was a case of Satan rebuking sin. (Laughter.) He was prepared to issue a challenge to the right hon. gentleman on history, and he would not take agitators. He quoted Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who said that he knew a good deal about these unions and all he knew of them was good. With regard to the unions, all he (Mr. Haggar) wanted to say was that, taking the history of the industrial world, they would find that in every case the greatest and most disastrous strikes had been where there had been no organisations of men. The right hon. gentleman might tread the “Cape Times” probably, but he did not get very much truth from that in these matters. (A laugh.) The point was, should they prevent these men from forming associations entirely in their own interest? Were the members of that House to take an attitude which would only provoke resentment on the part of these men? He was sure the Minister did not wish to see that, and he sincerely hoped that the clause would be deleted.

said that, as one of those members who were waited upon by the postal officials, he promised to do what he could to secure recognition for their organisations. He should oppose this clause.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell to omit sub-sections i(e) and (f) was negatived.

The amendment proposed by Sir Henry Juta in line 56 to omit “political or” was negatived.

put the question that sub-section (g), proposed by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Creswell to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

moved to add at the end of subsection (j), after “law” in line 46, “unless he can show that his insolvency, assignment, composition, or civil imprisonment has been occasioned by unavoidable misfortune.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 16,

moved in lines 13 and 14 to omit “other than those contributing to the fund mentioned in paragraph (c)”.

Agreed to.

explained that if an officer drew a salary of £500 a year, and was seconded to another service at £1,000, the latter salary would not count towards salary.

thought officers transferred to a Land Bank would suffer under this clause, and would not be allowed to contribute to the Pension Fund.

replied that that was the case. The obligation of the pension fund would be limited to the salary the officer drew when he was seconded.

put the case of a man with 30 years’ service, five of which were spent with the Land Bank at an enhanced salary.

It being five minutes to 6 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.

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

said that in one aspect this was the most important vote that they had on the Estimates, because it dealt with an industry that brought up by far the greater proportion of exports, £47,000,000. He regretted very much that they were precluded from discussing some aspects of this vote by the fact that they had no report from the Mines Department, the last report they had received being for 1911. He thought that it was very much to be reprehended that they had had no report for the past 18 months. As to the question touched upon on Tuesday night, he thought it was not right that this session should go by without the question of the bewaarplaatsen being brought before this Parliament. He took it that, after the declaration of the Minister of Finance in the Budget speech some three months ago, there must be some considerable apprehension among the holders of those securities, on which a great deal of money had been invested, and he could not see any reason why the question should not be introduced and why a resolution should not be taken upon this question.

emphasised the necessity of regular periodical examinations of the miners, both whites and natives, as otherwise they would never know what diseases raged. He trusted that in the other House the Minister would provide for such examination, and he was confident that the Tuberculosis Commission would in its report make a recommendation to that effect. The mines themselves ought also to be inspected.

said that he wished to call attention to the item dealing with geological surveys. He found that the making of geological surveys was costing the country £20,000 a year, and he thought hon. members would agree with him that that was an exceedingly large sum. The maps were most intricate and exceedingly well got up, but, as far as he could see, they were useless. He did not know what results the Minister hoped to get from this large expenditure; there was no information before the House as to what the results had been.

said that a geological report was issued every year. It was most elaborate, and contained very useful information, and he would be sorry if any reduction were made in the vote. He considered that the Cape Colony had been neglected.

It has not. (Laughter.)

To a certain extent. We in the Transvaal are far in advance of the Cape.

No, you’re not.

said that he should like to see more money put on the Estimates for geological surveys. This was a large country, and they did not know it. If they could locate minerals by geological surveys, then surely these surveys must be of use.

That just shows you that the hon. member has spoken from the fullness of his ignorance in regard to the Cape Colony. Geological surveys have been going on in the Cape since 1895. Proceeding, he said that the first Geological Commission started its work in that year. The Cape Government voted annually £2,000 on the principle of a grant in aid, which was handed over to the Commission, and it employed geologists. The Commission looked after the expenditure, presented reports, and mapped out a considerable portion of the country. There was a distinction between making a geological survey and prospecting.

I know that.

One was scientific, and that is what the geological survey aims at. Proceeding, he said that competent authorities who had come to this country from other parts had told them, and he believed with justice, that their geological surveys here had been done on the most economical and most scientific scale that one could find anywhere, certainly the most economical. He said nothing of other parts of this country. Times, however, had changed, and the Union Government had altered all that. They had dismissed the Geological Commission in a very curt and discourteous manner. They in the Cape sat down under it; what else could they do? They had taken it over as a Government department, but whether the work would be done as economically he did not know, but he hoped it would be. He held that the best means to do this work was not by a department, but by Commissions. They could give them a grant-in-aid each year. The plan that was followed in the Cape was a good one, but the Government in their wisdom had adopted a new plan, and they must wait and see how it worked.

said that he was disappointed with the hon. member for Umlazi, but his real object in speaking was to say something in regard to accidents on the mines.

There was a good deal of truth in what the right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West, had said in regard to the state of affairs on the Rand, but he had exaggerated things. There was no doubt that some of the conditions on the Band required improvement, but he must say that they were being improved as far as it was possible to do so. He entirely agreed with the right hon. gentleman in protesting against the abolition of the inquest law in the Transvaal and in placing upon the shoulders of inspectors of mines the duties of coroners. He hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration. Knowing what he did of the actual practice on the mines, he considered that the sooner they relieved the inspectors of mines of the duties of coroners the better it would be for the mines, the country, and everybody concerned. He hoped that the Government would learn wisdom during the recess and come forward next session with a new inquest law under which mine inspectors would devote their time to their proper functions and not conduct inquests.

said that the question of the inquest law was raised in the House last year, and the then Minister of Mines (General Smuts) gave a full explanation as to why the law in the Transvaal was altered to what it was at the present moment. He was informed that in the Transvaal when a death occurred three inquiries were held. An inquiry was held by the inspector of mines, which was followed by an inquest by the magistrate, and then, if there were a case, a preliminary examination was hold, followed by a trial. It was found that these inquiries led to inefficiency and serious delays and inconveniences, and in 1909 on the advice of the Department of Mines the inquest was abolished.

Only human life is concerned; that is all.

But the inspector of mines holds an inquiry, and there is a prosecution if there is anything wrong.

But he is not the proper man to hold the inquiry.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, may know more about mining than the men engaged in it, and, therefore, I bow to their authority, but I am only giving the experience of the Department. Proceeding, he said he would go into the matter during the recess, and if he found it was necessary to make an alteration in the Act that was passed in 1909, he would not hesitate to bring in an amending Bill.

He only wanted to say to the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman)—he said that the Geological Commission was dismissed in rather a perfunctory way. Well, as a matter of fact, the Commission had not had its final word yet. A suggestion was put forward shortly after Union that the two officials should come under the one department, and if the hon. member would refer to the third report of the Civil Service Commission he would see they very strongly recommended that, and said it was wrong to have officials Hike these men working outside the department. He hoped that the services of the Geological Commission would be recognised in the—

They don’t want any recognition. We simply want civility.

said that as regarded the report of the department, the committee would notice that no departments’ reports had come forward.

The Post Office has come forward.

For what year?

The Department of Justice.

Commerce and Industries. (Laughter.)

said that with their financial year ending on March 31 and Parliament sitting early in the year, one was driven to this course. It would either come late for Parliament, or would only deal with a period which was far behind. They would have to strike a mean, and have the reports not running for the calendar year, but for some other period. As regarded the bewaarplaatsen, as he said in the House last evening, they could not deal with it this session, but would do so next session. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) made some very strong remarks about the inspection of mines and efficiency. He did not know on what personal or practical knowledge he spoke, he could only say of his knowledge of these men that they were doing their best. (Hear, hear.) There might not be enough of them, and they might be working under difficulties, and might not be supported as they should be, but they were hardworking men, and were doing their best. As regarded the diamond cutting industry, a remark was made, and he had seen a circular sent round that the big houses that dealt with rough diamonds in this country did not sell here. But that was no reason why, for our local consumption, men should not be able to get diamonds, because they had the River Diggings at Bloemhof, and so on, where men were selling diamonds every day. So that there should be ample for the local consumption. Anybody could buy these. It was an open market. He thought the question of a diamond cutting industry was rather exaggerated. (Hear, hear.) They required very large capital indeed; capital which could be better and more profitably invested in South Africa in other directions. (Hear, hear.)

For their local consumption the industry was hardly worth while talking about, and seeing that they had plenty of other directions in which they could invest their money, it seemed to him they were looking for an industry, when they had a great number of others at hand in which they could use the capital more profitably. But one thing was certain, that they could hardly hope to succeed with a diamond cutting industry in this country. There was a certain amount of work done now in the country in that direction, but it was not a high class of work. They could not compete with men in other parts of the world, where they had been trained in the industry for generations. They had attempted to do it in America, and had only partially succeeded, and it seemed to him they would be ill-advised to lock up the great amount of capital, which could be used more profitably in other directions. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Vrededorp asked for the report of the Freehold Commission. That report was being printed. He (the hon. Minister) was as anxious to have it as the hon. member was. He hoped the House would now take the vote.

said he had no reply to his questions as to the Precious Stones Bill, the riparian rights of river diggers, and the registration tax. He hoped the Minister would give some explanation.

said that with regard to the appeal from the Diggers’ Committee, that matter was engaging his attention at present. The Chief Detective had been instructed to go from Kimberley to Barkly for the purpose of interviewing people there. As regarded the registration fees, there were inequalities from one Colony to another which had existed from pre-Union days. He did not think it could be defended, under Union, why diamonds purchased in the Free State should pay ½ per cent. to go into the Cape Colony and then ½ per cent. for export, while the Cape diamond only paid ½ per cent. export duty. But it would have his attention. He (the hon. member) spoke of a visit to Barkly. Well, the Hon. the Minister of the Interior had been there and seen some of the knotty points.

He has not solved them.

Well, he has promised to. I can’t put all the inequalities right in one day.

said he would like to have the Chairman’s ruling, whether he was in order in asking the Minister a question arising out of the scrap iron agreement? The matter was still on the paper, and although to-day was devoted to Government business, it was now down among the dead men. It was a question of finance, which was still outstanding, and the Majority Report recommended—(Cries of “Order.”)

asked whether it had anything to do with the Mines Department?

The Secretary for Mines is the official responsible for it. May I quote one clause in the Majority Report which will show my point? The committee found that the final contract should not be completed until certain financial arrangements had been satisfactorily adjusted. What is the Minister going to do with these, and to get them satisfactorily adjusted?

said that he could not allow the hon. member to refer to the report, or go into details.

I will be careful about that. (Laughter.) The majority of the Select Committee itself has pointed out that the certificate given by the High Commissioner—

The hon. member must put a direct question.

replied that under the contract the Government must be satisfied on two points before they signed the second or subsidiary contract: that the capital of the company had been guaranteed, and that a sum of £75,000 was available for the company. The first certificate was to the effect that the amount of the capital of the company had been sufficiently guaranteed. The other point was outstanding, and the committee reported that the £75,000 was not actually available. He had sent a cable to the High Commissioner, who had now replied that satisfactory arrangements had been made, and that more than £75,000 was actually available at the present moment. (Hear, hear.)

spoke of the unsatisfactory reply which the Minister had given as to the diamond-cutting industry, and said that his explanation now was different from that he had given a month ago. No such suggestion had fallen from them as the Minister had suggested, but what they had suggested was that they ought to have an export tax on diamonds, and then people would see that a diamond-cutting industry was established and encouraged in South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

asked whether the Minister would lay the High Commissioner’s reply on the table of the House.

asked whether it was the Minister’s intention to sign the first draft agreement, laid on the table of the House the other day because he advised him to take expert advice before he entered into such a foolish agreement. He had paid enough as it was now, and do not let him get into a worse mess. He was going to lose money anyhow, and let him make it as little as possible. (Opposition laughter.)

said that the hon. member went into the report and reflected on the contract, but he thought he ought to wait until it was before the House. He could only say that the contract which would have to be signed must be substantially in the same terms as that which they had signed with Mr. Wright. (Opposition laughter.)

ruled the hon. member for Port Elizabeth out of order.

asked whether he had to understand that it was without the province of a member of that House to ask any question regarding a contract the Government proposed to sign? Was their province so limited that they could not ask a Minister of the Crown a question of finance?

I have already given my ruling, and I cannot allow discussion on matters of detail.

said that what he wanted to put was this point: suppose that they came to a Government vote, and the Government, knowing they were coming, put on a future occasion the subject for discussion, say a fortnight hence, then Parliament might never get an opportunity of asking a question on that particular point, even on the Estimates, because it appeared on the paper for a later occasion, and the Government, which controlled the paper, might put it down so that they might never get an opportunity of getting a reply. He wanted to know whether the Government would sign that agreement in its present form.

was understood to say that they must not discuss the merits now, and not go into detail.

said that he would not go into the merits of the contracts, but wanted to know whether the contract was to be signed in its present form, and he wanted to put to the Minister that in its present form it was lax, and not a definite agreement that held the contractors to certain definite performances, and it did not define things—it did not define what manufacture was, for instance, and used broad terms of that kind, which should be defined. As it stood now, he was afraid that the terms of the agreement would allow them to import instead of manufacture, and he wanted the Minister to be on his guard before putting his name to that.

said that he would like to ask the Minister whether he could not put into the agreement that all articles supplied by the company to the railways must be made within the Union, and must be made of material coming from that country.

in reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, said that he would take steps to see that the contract he signed was in substantially the same terms as the contract he had already signed. If new matter were introduced, they (the company) would refuse to take the contract.

So much the better. (Laughter)

I don’t agree with the hon. member, and there’s the difference. As to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, has asked, I would like to say that we must be satisfied as to the site. He went on to say that for the first two or three years a certain amount of pig-iron would have to be imported, so that they could not insist on all the raw material coming from that country.

It is a case of Moses and his green spectacles again. (Laughter.)

said that the Minister had a letter from Mr. S. Marks, who was intimately connected with that contract, and was willing to insert the words “within the Union of South Africa.” Would the Minister take steps to see that these words, proposed to be inserted by Mr. Marks, were taken advantage of?

I think it is absolutely unnecessary to put these words in, but as the directors are agreeable to put these words in, I have no objection. (Laughter.)

The amendment which had been moved by Mr. Jagger, to reduce the vote by £50, was withdrawn.

moved that in the item of £6,470 (Grey University College) there be a reduction of £650, the salary of the professor of pedagogy. The hon. member said that some years ago the professor in question had five students, but now he had only two, who were both getting bursaries, and cost the State £370 a year. He did not wish to take the money away from being used for educational purposes, and as he believed the teaching of science was badly provided for he would suggest that the money be devoted to that object. He thought it was nothing less than a public scandal to vote this money, and he moved the reduction of the amount by £650.

asked the Minister to put down an amount for bursaries for young men to study art in Europe. Last year when he raised this question, the Minister had said that these young men should complete their studies here. He wished to point out that even in Europe moneys were made available to allow young men to study art in other countries, so this country should follow the example of those other countries. They had large numbers of extremely gifted young men here, who with proper studies might rise to the top rung of the ladder. If an amount of £3,000 were laid down most excellent results would be achieved. There was a good deal of latent artistic talent in the country, which was at present being lost.

moved the deletion of the amount. He said that the item had been inquired into by the Committee on Public Accounts, when it was discovered that this work fell under the control of the Provincial Council. He understood it was agreed that the vote should be withdrawn.

hoped the amendment of the member for Port Elizabeth, Central, would not be carried. He (the speaker) always understood that the mover was a strong advocate of technical education, and in all such matters they were strongly advised to adopt the example of the United States. Well, in America they were spending a great deal of money in the particular branch of learning which it was now proposed to restrict. In a country like South Africa, which was backward in science and technique, he thought it would be a retrogressive step to omit the vote.

quoted from the report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which it was recommended that as the object for which the money was proposed to be voted came within the functions of the Provincial Council, the amount should be deleted. He wanted to ask the Minister of Education if he intended to accept the recommendation.

said it appeared to him that the Public Accounts Committee were not aware that the Provincial Council had been consulted on the matter, and had agreed to the formation of the Board. It was thought necessary that there should be an Advisory Board for the purpose of advising on all matters relating to technical and industrial education and domestic science. Without such a Board these matters would lack coordination, and he thought it would be a mistake not to adopt the decision arrived at. Many of the trades societies had passed resolutions not only drawing attention to the necessity for technical teaching but also to the advisability of instituting a central or controlling body. The School of Mines had instituted technical classes, while in the Cape Province some work was being done in connection with the railway works at Salt River. The Board would consist of the heads of the Education Departments of each of the four Provinces. It was not the intention to supersede the functions of the Provincial Council, but to meet a much-felt want which existed in regard to technical education.

supported the motion of the member for Port Elizabeth, Central. He thought it was wasting £500 to vote it for that purpose. Ear better, he said, give it to the local authorities, who would be likely to make good use of it, as technical education in the Cape Province was not receiving the amount of Government support which it deserved. Domestic science was extensively taught in Cape Town, independently of Government. What the School Board wanted was not more direction, but more support from the Government.

agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town that they required more Funds, but the proposal to delete the vote was moved under a misapprehension. The Advisory Board had endeavoured to bring about uniformity in the various Provinces in the matter of technical education. He hoped the examinations and control of technical education would be under Union administration.

did not think the explanation disposed of the matter. No explanation had been given for the creation of another authority. It was possible to achieve what the hon. member for Woodstock had referred to without the creation of a new Board, (Hear, hear.)

said as far as he could make out the new Board gave promise of rapid and expensive growth. (Hear, hear.) The Board would immediately appoint a secretary and run round the country. The Technical Education Conference at Pretoria, to which reference was made, was by no means an infallible authority. The Minister was following it in one instance and disregarding it in another instance. If they adopted the proposed uniformity in this case, the same arguments could be used for adopting uniformity in many other educational matters. A good deal of technical education was carried out in the juvenile reformatories, as to which there was no need for such a board. The committee was liable to go astray in this matter. The Act of Union, laid it down that technical education was to be a Provincial matter, and the committee should act honourably with the Provinces, and give them a fair chance of dealing with the subject. The hon. member referred to the need for co-operation between the different Provincial Councils, so far as education was concerned, mentioning as a case in point, the inspection of secondary schools. It seemed to him that it would be wisest to take out this vote and leave it to the Provinces, in order to see how far the Provinces could go in the organisation and direction of technical education. For his own part, he felt that the time was coming when this House would have to take the whole question of education in hand.

said that he agreed with a great deal that the hon. member for Uitenhage had said. He wished to ask the Minister if he were not prepared to give recognition to the Chair of Education in the South African College? That Chair was being attended by 20 students, but up to the present time the Minister had not seen his way to give a grant-in-aid of the salary. Yet they found that at Bloemfontein the whole of the salary of the professor of education was paid, though he had but two students.

said that regarding this vote for a National Advisory Board for Technical and Industrial Education, they had a highly successful technical school at Durban. He should like to know whether the staff of that school had asked for the appointment of the National Advisory Board, or been consulted in any way about the appointment of the Board, and further, where this Board, if it were appointed, was to meet and exercise its functions. He agreed with the hon. member for Uitenhage that, as they had decided to leave technical education in the hands of the Provincial Councils for the present, they should give them a fair chance of carrying out their duties to see what success they could make of the matter without any interference or help from outside. He supported the motion for the deletion of this item.

said that the Chair of Pedagogy at Bloemfontein was created by an Act of the Free State Parliament before Union, and the professor was appointed under that Act, and it would be necessary to repeal the Act before they could change the system. The number of students had increased, and was now five. One of the reasons why the class was so small was that it was limited to men who had passed their B.A., and to Free State young men. An amount of £105,000 was allocated by the Free State Parliament before Union from their balances for the purpose of these bursaries and agricultural bursaries. As regarded the Chair of Education at the South African College, they were providing this year substantial sums for two new Chairs in connection with the School of Medicine, and it was not right that they should recognise a third Chair at the South African College this year. (VOICES: “Why not?”)

They had 20 students.

They are partly educated at the Normal College and partly at the S.A. College, a very good arrangement, and I have told the S.A. College that I see no objection next year to recognising the Chair of Education. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, he said there was no authority at present for granting these certificates to technical men. They had five different authorities, some from outside the Union, in London, and some within the Union, and there was absolutely no system by which these certificates were granted. They had one granted in the Transvaal not recognised in the Cape, and so on; there was no co-ordination as regarded examinations, and the Advisory Committee would, during the rest of the financial year, be engaged largely in making investigations. If he found, from the report of the committee or Board, that he had got the information he required, he would dispense with their services.

Once appointed, they will be a fixture.

It will be a voluntary Board.

said there was an item of £100 representing an allowance to the inspector of anatomy. There was no such vote for 1911-12. The footnote said it was drawn by the late Medical Officer of Health, now on pension. If the money had been drawn by him it had not been voted. Was it drawn by him, and where was he now?

said that what struck one as extraordinary was the way money was spent on institutions under the vote in reference to local needs. He would like the hon. Minister to look at the report of the Quarterly Commission appointed to consider matters concerning higher education. There was a table of expenditure per student. At the South African College the expenditure was £94 per student, of which £43 was provided by the College and £51 by the State. At Grey College, Bloemfontein, the total was £128, £18 being provided by the College and £110 by the State. The total cost at the Victoria College, Stellenbosch, was £54 per student, £17 being provided by the College and £37 by the State. At the Huguenot College the total was £81, the College providing £26 and £45 by the State. The cost at the Transvaal College was £207 per student, £12 only being provided by the College and £195 by the State. Money had been spent lavishly on these Colleges without the slightest regard to the wants of the country. Higher education would make no progress, the effect would be to smother it by lavishing money on it like that. It should be carefully subsidised by the Government in this country, but they should not go into extremes with regard to centralisation, for excessive centralisation was a bad thing when it came to such a thing as the leave of professors having to be decided by the Minister. It would kill originality, and would destroy all that was best in the system of higher education. It was a danger to which Government departments were subject of wishing to run the whole thing, and leaving nothing to local initiative.

said that he wished to support very strongly what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) had said. As regarded the South African College, he wished to point out that the Chair of Education had been established for two years During the first year there were 10 or 11 students, of whom nine were successful, and thin year there were 20 students, and they did not get a penny from the State. The students did not even get a single bursary.

Oh yes, they do.

Be that as it may, we pay our professor’s salary out of our pockets, and it is not fair. After all, the question is one of efficiency. Proceeding, he said he strongly supported the hon. member for Fordsburg as regarded differential treatment. In the other Provinces in the Free State, the Transvaal, and Natal, all the Colleges were purely State institutions, but the Cape Colleges, the South African College, the Rhodes University College, the Victoria College, and the Huguenot College were only State-aided; the only assistance they got was on the £ for £ principle. Take, for instance, the question of loans. The South African College at the present moment was liable for interest of £5,916, of which the Government paid half, and the College had to find out of the fees from students £2,958 every year. The Natal College, the Grey College in Bloemfontein, and the Transvaal College all had large buildings which did not cost them one sixpence in interest. Why should there be this differentiation? It should be got rid of. It was the same in regard to salaries. The South African College had to find half of the salary of each of its professors, and in the case of the Professor of Education, it had to find the whole of his salary. The South African College was cramped in its development owing to want of funds. So many students had joined the chemistry section that the College Council found that it had not proper and sufficient equipment. It had not the money with which to buy the necessary equipment, and had been compelled to run into debt. The South African College, he wished to remind hon. members, had more students than the Natal College, the Grey College, and the Transvaal College put together. It had 575 students, and was absolutely cramped for want of funds. Notwithstanding that development, the College charged the highest fees of all the Colleges. (An hon. member: “Oh!”) It had to do so in order to make ends meet. As a matter of fact, it had not got proper material for maintenance; it was very badly cramped in every way for want of funds. He hoped that the Minister would hasten on the Bill which was on the paper. It was not fair to go on as they were going at the present time. He hoped that the Minister would introduce an amended Bill at an early date, because he agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg as to the centralisation tendency of the Bill on the paper. He did not agree that the Minister should keep everything in his own hands. Why not trust the local people? It was far better than leaving everything to the Minister. After all, the local people were just as clever as the Minister, because they had years of experience. He did not speak disrespectfully of the Minister, but when men had many years of experience, surely it was better to trust them.

said that the hon. member spoke from the point of view of the old-established institutions like the South African College, but that was not the condition of the colleges up north.

How long has the Grey College been open?

It has been open since the war.

Oh, no; long before the war.

It was at Bloemfontein, but it never worked beyond the matriculation. All the students came down to Stellenbosch. It never worked higher until after the war. Proceeding, he said it was a State institution, and every penny was paid for by the Government. And then the hon. member would hand it over to them and have no Government control. If they were prepared to go on the footing of the South African College or the Victoria College it would be a different matter. He (the Minister) appointed a Commission to go into this matter. They attempted to bring these institutions into line as much as possible. He tasked the chairman of the Commission afterwards if there were any of these institutions which he could recommend to be closed. He said, “No, not a single one.” Let the hon. member take the bull by the horns and propose to close down the Grey College or the Pretoria or the Maritzburg Colleges.

I have not proposed to close a single one.

But if you propose to take away the financial support which they live on, you propose to close them down. Take the College of Technology in Johannesburg. It is a legacy from before Union. Proceeding, the Minister said that this Bill was an attempt to lay down regulations by which they attempted to grow into more uniformity; but they could not do it in one day. There would not be time for that Bill this session, but he would deal with it next session, and meanwhile he would bear these matters in mind.

said that while the hon. Minister was bearing that in mind he hoped he would bear in mind other points of view—the institution and control of offices in the University. Listening to the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) he formed somewhat the same opinion as did the Minister. It appeared to him that the hon. member and others who agreed with him were rather inclined to the opinion that they should somehow or other get hold of the whole control, or some part of it. (Cries of “No.”) The whole trend of his speech seemed to be in the direction of the removal of Government control and part of the Government’s contribution. He was absolutely opposed to the £ per £ system that was in vogue in the Cape.

Socialism.

Yes; Socialism, if you like. The object I have as a Socialist is the thorough education of the citizens of the State, and you cannot throw open thorough education to them unless you throw open to them the higher education. Proceeding, he said that under the present system of charging fees, the sons of poor parents were at a disadvantage, and it would be very difficult to convince him to the contrary. (Hear, hear.)

He would like to see that the State not only controlled, governed, and gave perfectly free elementary and secondary education, but higher education as well as far as it was possible to teach. The State practically paid for their colleges in the North now. That was not unhealthy. It was an unhealthy State where certain individuals, owing to the accident of birth, should be able to have the entree into these institutions, while others should be shut out. The only right of entry into these institutions should be merit, and merit only. The hon. member admitted that the school fees were heavy in the Cape, and they were heavier than anywhere else in South Africa. The reason was because the Government only contributed on the £ per £ principle.

said he only wished to say that he did not think that was so—what the hon. member had stated. He thought that in the Cape the amplest provision was made for the sons of poor men to go as far as they liked; and he thought in the Union as a whole. He was going to try and convince the hon. member on the simple principle of Columbus and the egg. The method adopted to enable a poor man’s son to pay high fees for higher education was to give him the money, and this was done by means of bursaries. They had a most lavish system of bursaries. Any student of ability could pass any examination and take his degree by paying for them with bursaries. He was bound to say it was a most satisfactory system. It was perfectly true that a rich man could send his sons to these institutions and keep them there and give them the education to counteract their natural dullness; but that was all. The poor youth of ability had the amplest provision made for him. On the whole, the system was a thoroughly democratic one, and he thought it was a pity that speeches of the sort made by the hon. member for Springs should be made. In the North he was sorry if provision was not made. He hoped that the committee was not going to throw away public money by agreeing to this £500. After that was decided there were other matters that would require attention.

said he would like to have a better reply from the Minister.

I cannot give a better answer. Proceeding, he said that last year the Anatomy Act was passed, and under that Act an Inspector of Anatomy had to be appointed. The School of Anatomy was established by proclamation in June, 1911, and immediately after the inspector, in the person of Dr. Gregory, who was then on pension, was appointed. He had to deliver the bodies to the anatomy class and see that they were properly buried afterwards.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether he could give the committee any information on a matter of great public importance. They had heard by means of the Press, in the last few days, that Sir Julius Wernher, who had left a lot of money in a most generous manner to South Africa, had left the sum of a quarter of a million to the South African University under certain conditions. He would like to know whether the amount was the same as had been discussed on previous occasions, or whether it was conditional, making the whole amount half-a-million, as had been stated in certain quarters. He did hope that the time was not going to go on much longer before some definite proposal was put before the House in regard to the University. (Hear, hear.) It was now four years since a definite resolution had been taken by the Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope, which said that it was necessary that immediate action should be taken on that question, and he was sure that his hon. friend (Mr. Malan) had voted for it, although he did not know whether he was in Opposition at the time or not. An immense amount of waste of effort was going on at the present time, and the brains and energies of the professors of these institutions were being squandered and thrown away on organisation and administrative work, which, he believed, brought no advantage whatever to the country, and merely represented, he was sorry to say, the mismanagement of that House in regard to that matter. He did not know whether they were going to regard that as a party question and vote rightly or wrongly on the mandate of one man in that matter. An immense amount of useless energy had been frittered away in idle administration, and nothing whatever had been done, and there appeared to be no idea of the importance of that matter to the nationality which they were supposed to represent in that House. He did appeal to the Minister and the Government that they should take up that matter earnestly, and should not wait to allow our policy to be laid down by benefactors from outside. He had his own views, and his hon. friend (Mr. Malan) by that time must also have his mind made up. Let them say that this was their policy, and that this was the path along which they intended to walk. He looked to his hon. friend to formulate a policy, as he had been taking great interest in that matter, both inside and outside the House. What had the Legislature of South Africa contributed in the last four years towards a settlement of that question? Nothing at all. They had had two mentions of that question in the Governor’s Speeches, but as far as getting that matter out of the rut into which it had got was concerned, they had done nothing at all. He did hope that next year, if it was not possible to mention the matter in the Governor’s Speech, they would have a Bill to deal with it; and let them, at any rate, deal with the matter, because it appeared to him that the House was guilty of frivolity if it let another year go by without anything being done. He did hope that his hon. friend would go along sound lines. Proceeding, he said that some years ago his hon. friend had been in charge of a Bill to put the Huguenot College in Wellington on a sound basis; and he (Mr. Fremantle) had had the honour of serving on the Select Committee in regard to that matter; and they, his hon. friend (Mr. Malan) and he, had been accused of being responsible for what happened. It had been part of the settlement that that College, being in the proximity of two other institutions for higher education, should be for women only. He was sorry to hear that his hon. friend was willing to go back on that, and he (Mr. Fremantle) would not be a party to that, and some of the staff at Wellington had been horrified on their going back on that agreement. He was entirely in favour of a woman’s college in South Africa, because there was a large number of people who desired it.

was putting the vote, when

said surely the Minister was going to make some response to the appeal of the hon. member for Uitenhage.

said that as regards the will of the late Sir Julius Wernher, the hon. member knew as much as he did. There was a clause in the will bequeathing £250,000 for the establishment of a National University at Groote Schuur on terms to be approved of by Sir Starr Jameson and Sir Lionel Phillips. He (Mr. Malan) knew nothing more about it than that. The Beit bequest was one of £200,000. The proposal now was that the Union Government should repudiate the latter bequest, and that Mr. Alfred Beit’sheirs would then give an equivalent amount. That would make up half a million.

With £50,000 added.

said he quite agreed with every word that had been said as to the necessity of coming to some settlement on this matter. University education was being hampered in several directions. The University Act required further amendment, and institutions away from Cape Town thought they ought to have a more direct say in University matters. Some forward step would have to be taken. It would have to be decided by next year when, he hoped, they would be able to deal with the question, and if they could not deal with the bequest they would have to deal with the University question itself.

The amendment proposed by Sir Edgar Walton was negatived.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger was withdrawn.

took exception to the highly centralised system of not allowing any official to spend a few shillings without reference to Pretoria. In one case a Resident Magistrate had to get authority from Pretoria to spend 9s.

said he had already very strongly expressed himself in the House on that matter. No doubt for some time just after Union there had been a tendency to concentrate unduly. He was thankful to his hon. friend for drawing his attention again to these points. He would go into the matter, and he did not think it passed the wit of man to devise some scheme of doing away with these local grievances.

said he did not know what arrangement the Government was going to make with regard to the Minister of Finance. His hon. friend (General Smuts) had already had his salary provided for as Minister of the Interior, but he did not know if his hon. friend was going to have another £3,000, although he did not say that that would be beyond his hon. friend’s deserts. Sir Edgar then asked for information regarding the item, “temporary assistants and salaries of redundant officers, £5,000,” also for details regarding embossing machinery and the Land and Agricultural Loan Fund Office at Bloemfontein.

thought his hon. friend was unnecessarily solicitous about the question of the salary of the Minister of Finance. It reminded him of a gentleman during the last election, who found great fault with him because he held three portfolios and drew three salaries. (Laughter.) He (General Smuts) supposed that some Minister of Finance would materialise at some time or other.

Is it not one of the economies you might effect in the existing offices?

Perhaps we will see about that, sir. Continuing, General Smuts explained that the hon. member for Barberton had effected very large economies in the various Treasury Departments, but it was impossible to get rid of redundant men at once. Then with regard to the Land Bank which was in the Free State. This had been constituted on the lines of the Australian Banks. In the near future the Land Banks, which the new legislation would establish, would take its place, but for the present it was necessary to renew the vote, as it would be some time before those institutions were in full swing.

asked what the Minister intended doing with regard to the municipalities and the working of the Stamp Act? The late Minister of Finance had recognised the grievances which a deputation from the Municipal Associations of South Africa had placed before him. One of those was the payment of stamp duty of 1s. per £100 on transferable stocks which the Councils themselves had to pay, not having contemplated such a form of taxation when the loans were raised. There was also the grievance that stamps were required in the granting of certificates to trade. Municipalities, although they received no revenue for licences, had to disburse the amount of the stamp. Would the Minister give them to understand that he would take steps to remedy these anomalies? He thought a small Bill would set the matter right.

said he had a small Bill in his pocket, but he did not want to frighten members at that late period of the session. (Laughter.) He recognised that anomalies existed in the Stamp Act, which would require legislation to set right, but he did not think it was possible to do anything that session.

asked the Minister when the fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee, dealing with railway matters, would be laid on the table?

asked for information with regard to the half-cost of Land and Agricultural Loan Fund Office, Bloemfontein, £2,000?

said he thought the Minister ought to go into that matter. He recognised his hon. friend’s difficulty.

said that he made the total cost £3,700.

Vote 23, Inland revenue, £25,925, having been agreed to,

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