Report of Trades Commissioner in London on South Africa’s Fresh Fruit Export Trade, 1911.

Report on management and discipline of Convict Stations and Prisons, 1909 (Cape).

Papers relating to Land Grants (Nos. 80 to 82).

These were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Amended Loan Vote E (Lands and Settlements).

Report of Commission on Natives and Native Administration, 1909 (Orange River Colony).

Reports of Customs and Port Officers, 1909 (Cape); of Controller of Excise, 1909 (Cape); and of Collector of Customs, 1909 (Natal).

Report of Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank, 1st July, 1909, to 30th June, 1910; Reports of committee appointed by Government of late Orange River Colony respecting grant of assistance to persons wounded during the war, and widows of persons killed during the war.

announced that the Governor-General, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the King, had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills, viz.:

South Africa Defence Act.

Police Act

moved that on and after Tuesday, the 18th instant. Government business have precedence on Tuesdays.

seconded.

said that he saw on the paper a number of questions and motions for Tuesday He understood that the proposal was that Government business should be taken first on Tuesday next before the work already on the paper, but he thought it was due to the House that the right hon. gentleman should state his reasons for making this proposal. The only justification for such a motion was that it was intended shortly to bring the session to a close. It would be a great convenience to hon. members if the Prime Minister would inform the House when it was intended to bring the session to a close.

asked what the Minister proposed to do in connection with any questions that might be asked. Questions took up but little time, and they often served a very useful purpose.

said it was highly inconvenient that a motion of this kind should be put on the paper between Tuesdays, for members had set their motions down because they thought there was a reasonable hope of reaching them. He had a motion on the paper which was of considerable importance to a large district.

said: With reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Boshof, I only wish to say that, even if my motion is accepted, there will be no difficulty in respect to replying to questions in the first place on Tuesday afternoons. (Hear, hear.) But the Government wish to have precedence given to Government business, and any private motions can be dealt with after Government business has been concluded. The reason why I introduce this motion is that I think it is time for this session to conclude, and I think that I am entitled to appeal to my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition to assist us in finishing the business. (Hear, hear.) There is yet a considerable amount of business to be transacted. There are, in the first place, the Estimates and other financial work; then there are the Immigration Bill, the Financial Relations Bill, the Public Service Bill, and other matters.

What about railway constructions?

The Government is anxious to take Tuesday afternoons, because we hope to be able to finish the business by the end of next week, but it will take a long time to get the measures through the Senate, and unless we have the assistance of the House, considerable delay in getting the work through the Senate will ensue. The Estimates have taken up more time than I anticipated, and we do not propose to proceed with the financial work in another place until we have finished here with that work. If we appropriate Tuesdays it will assist us very greatly in getting finished with the business. I think there is a possibility of concluding within the next fourteen days. (Hear, hear, and Ministerial cheers.)

said that the Prime Minister did: not mention one Bill on which they had spent a great deal of time, and that was the Estates Duties Bill. If it were not intended to proceed with that Bill the Prime Minister should tell them so.

replied that the intention was not to proceed with the Estates Duties Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said that it was not only the Railway Construction Bill; there was an immense amount of work set down upon the Order paper, and really it was not treating the House with courtesy or the country with justice. It was reducing the whole thing to a farce. They had had uncommon delay in the bringing forward of the Estimates and also of the Public Service Bill. It was well known that that Bill was going to take a considerable amount of time. Then there was the Financial Relations Bill to get through by the end of next week. Well, was that at all possible? (Ministerial cries of “Yes.”) Well, it was absolutely impossible to do so properly. It was not fair to ask hon. members to sit up night after night after a long day, and then turn up fresh in the morning to do the work of the country properly Ministers laughed, but it was all very well for them. Two of them only turned up, and the rest of the benches were empty, but they (the Opposition) had got to turn up and try to do the best they could. Only yesterday hon. members came prepared to deal with the Administration of Justice Bill, but it was switched off and another Bill dealt with, in order to suit the convenience of Ministers. The whole business was absolutely run as a personal business for the convenience of Ministers, and not for the good of the country, and he protested against such procedure. It was not respectful to the House, and was not consistent with their duty to the country.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the House resolve itself into committee to consider the fourth report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: “This committee concurs in the purchase by the Government of the share and interest of the Rhodesia Railways, Limited, in certain remaining extent of land known as ‘The First Railway Land Grant,’ Bechuanaland, including the company’s share and interest in the mineral rights of the whole area of the First Railway Land Grant, for a sum not exceeding thirty-four thousand five hundred pounds sterling (£34,500), and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in a provisional deed of agreement, dated 6th June, 1912, entered into between the Government and the said Rhodesia Railways, Limited.”

Agreed to.

moved that the Chairman report the resolution.

Agreed to.

The resolution was thereupon reported to the House, and adopted.

said that sub-section (a) provided that the necessary expenses to be incurred by the person subpoenaed, in going to and returning from the court where out the subpoena was issued, and his detention at the place whereat and for the purpose for which his attendance was required, should be tendered to him with the subpoena. That, however, was merely an estimate, and experience had shown that these estimates were very often very wrong. Witnesses were detained a great deal longer than was originally contemplated, and it was only right that witnesses should have their expenses tendered to them from day to day for the period they were detained. Supposing a witness got expenses on the estimate of two days and the case lasted 10 days, it was only right that he should get his expenses for that period. The meaning of his amendment was that if a witness were delayed beyond the time for which he were subpoenaed there should be tendered to him each day before the sitting of the Court the expenses of that day. He moved, as an amendment, to add at the end: “If a witness is detained) beyond the period for which his necessary expenses shall have been tendered to him, he shall be entitled to have tendered to him his necessary expenses on each day on which he is so detained, before or at the sitting of the Court to which he has been subpoenaed.

seconded.

said that he hoped the hon. member would not press the amendment. If expenses had to be tendered from day to day it meant that they would have to employ a man to go round to see if the witnesses had been paid. And supposing it happened that a witness did not get his expenses, for some reason or other, before the sitting of the Court, he would have the right to clear off. He did not think that they should take any unnecessary risks in the matter. Such cases as had been referred to were always met, and could always be met, through the Department.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 16, Interpretation of section 109 of South Africa Act, 1909,

moved to omit the clause and to substitute the following new clause: “Whenever under section 109 of the South Africa Act, 1909, it is necessary to determine whether it is for the convenience of suitors to hear any appeal pending in the Appellate Division elsewhere than at Bloemfontein, the fact shall be determined by the said Division on application thereto made at Bloemfontein by any such suitor.” He said that when the clause was moved in committee it had not previously appeared on the paper, and hon. members had been taken unawares. Although a large number of the committee approved of the idea which underlay the new clause, they felt at the time that it was somewhat crude. It was impossible, however, on the spur of the moment to suggest something better, and consequently the clause as it appeared in the Bill was passed. Since then he had endeavoured to frame something which would meet the circumstances better, and it was the amendment which he had now moved. It was unnecessary to discuss the merits of the new clause as it appeared in the Bill. It was perfectly obvious to the committee that it was drawn in a crude form and should be amended, and he thought that the object which was desired by the committee when they inserted the original clause would be met by his amendment.

seconded the amendment.

moved the following amendment to follow that of the hon. member for Heidelberg: The hearing of an appeal elsewhere than at Bloemfontein shall not be deemed to be for the convenience of any such suitor, unless exceptional circumstances exist, necessarily incidental to the determination of the appeal.

seconded.

hoped that the House would not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg, because it asked them to go further than the Act of Union, in fact, the hon. member wanted to amend the Act of Union. It might from time to time be necessary to amend that Act, but only in special circumstances. He moved as an amendment to add at the end “Provided that where consent in writing of all parties to the suit is filed within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court with the Registrar of the Appellate Division such application shall not be necessary.”

seconded.

said the hon. member did not understand what the Free State members were after. He said that they should not tamper with the Act of Union, and he suggested that the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg was tampering with the Act of Union. He would like to ask why these statements were always being made in the House? If something had not happened for members of the Free State to take cognisance of these matters, these discussions would not have arisen. It was the practice that had prevailed hitherto that they wished to condemn. It had been laid down, and frequently argued, that cases were heard in Cape Town because there were so many more appeals from other Provinces, and because the Cape barristers were better acquainted with Cape law, and were better able to argue there. If this sort of argument held for the Cape, it held also for the other Provinces. There were many reasons why Cape attorneys wanted their appeals heard in Cape Town, but they rarely went so far as to consult their clients. In ninety cases out of a hundred it did not matter to the suitor where his case was heard, but it might make a big difference to the attorneys. He felt very strongly upon this subject. Again, it was an extraordinary thing that when the Judges of the Appellate Division were actually sitting at Bloemfontein they got an allowance of £3 a day. They were actually being paid expenses for doing work in the town which, by the Constitution, they were expected to do their work in. Therefore, he said that the House should not be led away by this talk about tampering with the Act of Union. It was an argument that could be easily seized upon and driven to death.

said at the outset he would explain to the hon. member for Bloemfontein, that the Judges expenses would be the same whether the Court sat at Cape Town or Bloemfontein, so that as far as the matter of expense went, it did not cost the State any more either way. With regard to the amendments before the House he thought they ought to adopt those by the hon. members for Heidelberg and Winburg. (Cheers.) There was no doubt that the amendment adopted on the last occasion the matter was before the House was to meet a sudden position with which the country and the House was dissatisfied, but it was felt that when the BUT came to the report stage some other provision would be put in the place of the amendment carried last Saturday. The whole question was how they were to meet the requirements under the South Africa. Act. He thought it was admitted by everyone that it was intended in section 109 of the Constitution that. Bloemfontein should be the headquarters of the Court of Appeal. (Cheers.) The second point was that all appeals should be heard at Bloemfontein, except such appeals as those which, for the greater convenience of litigants, would be heard elsewhere. If they were to have Bloemfontein as the headquarters without any further suspicion being raised as to the bona-fides of the Judges, either it must be laid down that the Judges should reside at Bloemfontein or the House must make sure that the Judges would decide every case there. The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg would nullify the very object attained by the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg.

How?

Because the very fact that you tell a judge sitting in Cape Town or Pretoria, “You can decide whether you will go to Bloemfontein to hear a case” puts the public in the position of saying that the judge will decide for his own convenience. Concluding, General Hertzog said, could any hon. member ever maintain that it was ever intended by section 109 of the South Africa Act—he would not speak of the Convention—that the Court which should hold its sittings at Bloemfontein, to suit the convenience of suitors, say that it would sit at Ladybrand because both parties lived there, and therefore that it would be more convenient for the suitors if that course were adopted. If so, that course must be followed consistently, and whenever the two parties to a case hailed from the same place the Court must sit there. (Cheers.) He held, and the country held, that the Appeal Court should sit at any other place than Bloemfontein only when exceptional circumstances occurred.

said he understood that it was not the intention of the movers of the amendments to depart in any way from the South Africa Act. He took it that that was the fundamental ground upon which the House was asked to vote on the amendments. He remembered hearing someone remark that they had not to do with the spirit or the intention of the Convention, but with the words of the South Africa Act. He held that if that became sauce for the goose it would remain sauce for the gander, and that they were now going to deal with the words of the Act of Union. He took it that the best tribunal for determining what the meaning if the South Africa Act was was the Court of Appeal. It was perfectly puerile to say that they were not going to depart from the South Africa Act and at the same time to put themselves up in judgment on the Court of Appeal. Let them be perfectly honest over the matter. They were either going to sit in judgment on the Court of Appeal, or they were not. Let them Be honest and say that the Court of Appeal’s decision in this matter was all wrong, only do not let them be dishonest, and say that they were going to abide by the Act and also by the decision of the Court of Appeal. Personally, he had not the slightest objection to any of these amendments himself. The amendment of the hon. member for Heidelberg proposed certain machinery by which the question should be determined, leaving it to the Supreme Court to determine whether it was, or was not, for the convenience of suitors that a case should be heard at one place or another.

But if they took the subsequent amendment they were altering the Act of Union; they were saying that the Court of Appeal was pretending a sham. Let them not mince words. The hon. member for Bloemfontein said that the way the Court of Appeal was dealing with the Act was a sham. He (Sir Henry) did not think the hon. member meant it.

I did not say that.

That is the effect of his words, and he certainly used the word “sham,” and there is a good deal to the same effect which is contained in the remarks of the Minister. He said that what the Court is doing is not in the meaning of the Act. We should not—certainly not in the second session of this Parliament—begin to tamper with the South Africa Act, nor should we sit in judgment on the very highest Court of Justice in the land. If the Court of Appeal is to decide in accordance with the Act whether it is for the convenience of suitors, let it be so. But don’t let the House attempt to bind them down. Surely that is limiting the powers of the Appeal Court under the South Africa Act in a way which no one ever dreamed of. I would strongly urge the Minister to admit the amendment of the hon. member for Heidelberg, and not that of the hon. member for Winburg, which attempts to limit the Court of Appeal in its construction of the Act. He smiles, because it is his intention to limit the Court. His amendment is undoubtedly a limitation of the Court, and I should strongly urge that we leave the interpretation of the Act to the Court of Appeal, and not to interfere and pass judgment on them. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to indicate to the House the impression of Natal in connection with the interpretation of this question. The impression was in accord with the statement of the Minister of Justice, so far as the words of the Act of Union were concerned. It was understood that primarily the Appellate Court would be at Bloemfontein. He spoke subject to correction, but he had not heard of any definite decision of the Court on the subject. But even if there had been a decision on the subject, and they were aware that this was a breach of the intention of the Act of Union, surely it was competent to put that right by Statute. He thought it desirable that some decision should be arrived at in order that they of the legal profession might make arrangements. He had a doubt whether the matter was covered by the amendments, but sooner than leave things as they were, he would vote for both amendments.

Old clause 16 was negatived.

Mr. Cronje’s amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment according, dropped.

The new clause, as amended, was agree to

New clause 14,

moved the following new clause 14 (to follow clause 13): “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law contained, the Eastern Districts Local Division shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals in criminal cases from the decision of any inferior Court within its jurisdiction, subject always to a further right of appeal to the Appellate Division, under such conditions as would have applied if the further appeal had been from a Provincial Division.” The mover said that he wanted the right of appeal from the Eastern Districts Court to the Cape Provincial Division, instead of straight to the Appellate Court of South Africa. He dealt with the number of cases reviewed at the Cape in 1909—1,936—as compared with the number —3,193—reviewed by the Eastern Districts Court, and said that 19 public bodies were in favour of the principle which he was proposing.

seconded the amendment.

The proposed new clause 14 was declared to be negatived.

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

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 17: “18. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in section 27 of the ‘Administration of Justice Proclamation (Transvaal), 1902,’ or any other law, concurrent jurisdiction with the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court is hereby conferred on the Witwatersrand local division of the said Supreme Court to confirm liquidation accounts and grant rehabilitation in matters arising within the boundaries of the said Witwatersrand local division.” The hon. member went on to say that he understood, when he gave notice of this motion, that, as the law stood in the Cape Colony, one Judge may sit in appeal in both criminal and civil cases, but the practice was to the contrary. He knew also that in the Transvaal it was definitely stipulated that in the Supreme Court two judges should sit in appeal. He proposed to ask for leave to delete that part of the motion which referred to appeals, and to move the motion in its amended form, so as to enable the Rand High Court to grant rehabilitations and confirm liquidation accounts. At present it was necessary in these matters for application to be made to the Provincial Court sitting in Pretoria, where these matters could be taken in Chambers. He claimed that a judge sitting in Johannesburg should be able to deal with such applications. He understood there was to be a certain amount of opposition, and that telegrams had been flying about from Pretoria. Pretoria had been doing this particular class of work for some time, and it was afraid that it was going to be shorn of some of its fees. The objection, he understood, came from some of the legal fraternity. They knew what the legal fraternity was. (Laughter.) They were always ready to look after their own pockets. He did not blame them for it. Practically about £100 to £200 of fees would be taken out of their pockets, and would go into the pockets of those at Johannesburg, who were rightly entitled to these fees, but upon higher grounds of the rights of the public it was also for the convenience of applicants that these matters should be heard before the Rand High Court, which would also effect a very considerable saving in costs.

seconded the amendment.

The proposed new clause was negatived.

Clause 25,

moved to add at the end of sub-section (4) the word “hereof”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Clause 9,

said that he desired to move an amendment on clause 9, but he had not yet had a chance of doing so.

I am afraid it is too late to go back to clause 9. The hon. member can only move amendments after clause 24.

said that he had not had an opportunity previously of introducing his amendment.

said that there had evidently been a misunderstanding. What was the amendment of the hon. member?

said that he wanted to urge upon the Minister that they should do away with this method of interrogatories, and have one system, viz., commission. The system of interrogatories at present applied only to the lower Courts. If a witness was not within the jurisdiction, and it was desired to obtain his evidence, what took place was that they had to claim interrogatories.

The framing of interrogatories required a great deal of skill It was exceedingly difficult for one to sit down and frame beforehand all the points upon which evidence was wanted. On the score of expense, it was better to have a commission. In the case of interrogatories, a suitor had to employ a legal practitioner to frame the interrogatories, which were then sent to the magistrate of the place in which the witness lived. The interrogatories were then put to the witness by the magistrate, and a number of further questions might be put, in order to get the proper answers. That meant that the suitor had also to employ a legal practitioner before the magistrate. Now, why could they not have the same system as they had in the Superior Courts? In the case of commissions, evidence was taken by the magistrate, as in an ordinary case, and, from experience, he considered that that was much more likely to do justice. They were more likely to get at the true facts in this way than if they asked a man in Durban to frame interrogatories for witnesses in Cape Town. So far as expense was concerned, there would be a saving, because they would only have one appearance, instead of two, and they would get exactly what they wanted. He would suggest, therefore, that just as they had a commission in regard to evidence for the Superior Courts, so they should let the evidence be taken before a magistrate in the case of the Lower Court. He moved in line 4 to omit “interrogatories”, and to substitute “a commission”; in line 12 to omit all the words from “together” to “person” in line 13; in line 16 to omit “interrogatories”; in line 20 after “court” to omit all the words to “interrogatories” in line 22; in line 54 to omit “lawful,” and to substitute “reasonable”; and in line 42 to omit “interrogatories”, and to substitute “evidence”.

In sub-section 4, he said it was stated that any person summoned to appear who failed without lawful excuse to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons might be arrested. Now, he wanted to point out that they did not define the meaning of lawful excuse. They did not say what lawful excuse was, and he moved that the word “lawful” be deleted, and the word “reasonable” substituted. If that were done, it would be a matter for the judge to decide whether an excuse was a reasonable one or not.

said he wanted to point out to the hon. member that it was not possible to do what he proposed, because the system of taking evidence by interrogatories was unfortunately legalised by their laws, and all that was said in this clause was how they should regulate the system. The time for deciding upon the merits of the system was when the law of procedure was brought before the House. So far as the amendment in subsection 4 was concerned, he was prepared to accept it.

in seconding, said he was sorry that the Minister would not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, because from practical experience this system of interrogatories had been very unsatisfactory.

I agree.

said that what they proposed was in the interests of the Department.

We can’t do away with it here.

The amendments proposed in sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) were negatived, and the amendment proposed in sub-section (4), line 34, was agreed to.

On clause 15,

said he wished to propose an amendment which was in accordance with the Bill as it was originally drafted. The object of the clause was that when a case was brought on in one Provincial Division and the Court thought that it would be more convenient for it to be heard in another Provincial Division, it could order it to be heard elsewhere. As the clause was originally framed, it was provided that if a case were removed from one Provincial Division to another it should be heard in accordance with the law and practice of the place whence it was removed. For some reason or other the word “law” was dropped, and all that remained was that the case should be heard in accordance with the practice, etc. Well, it seemed to him that the original idea of the Minister was a good one, because the laws in the various Provinces were not yet on a uniform basis. There was a considerable difference in the laws of the different Provinces. Now, supposing a man brought a case in the Province in which he was subject to certain laws, and the Court thought that it would be more convenient to have it heard somewhere else and transferred it to another Province, surely the suitor should have his case heard according to the law of the Province in which he lived and have his rights decided accordingly. If they did not insert provision that the case should be heard in accordance with the law of the Province in which the suitor lived, he would have to have his rights decided according to the law of the Province in which the case was heard. Take the case of a Free State suitor. Supposing all the witnesses lived in Graham’s Town, and the Court considered it more convenient that the case should be heard there, there might be some law with reference to wills upon which the Free State law differed from that of the Cape—as a matter of fact there were substantial differences—and it was only fair that that man, who had his case removed from the Free State should have his rights decided according to the law of the Free State and not according to the law of the Cape Province. He moved to insert before the word “practice” the words “law and.”

seconded.

said that the intention was simply to lay down what was the law with reference to the practice and procedure that should obtain.

moved as an amendment to the amendment to omit the word “practice.”

seconded.

said it was impossible to follow the hon. Minister. He was not aware that the Transvaal could sign a paper stating that the Court shall not decide a case according to the law of the Transvaal, but according to the law of China. (Laughter.) If this were allowed in one Province, it should be allowed in the others. For instance, the Transvaal people might send a case to Cape Town and ask it to be decided according to the law of Japan. (Laughter.)

The hon. member is now dealing with the question of practice.

Well, it would be the same with regard to practice. Continuing, the hon. member asked the Minister to reconsider this, because it would cause a great deal of inconvenience.

The amendment moved by Sir H. Juta was negatived.

withdrew his amendment.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted, and the third reading set down for Saturday.

moved in line 45, after “shall” to insert “in the case of any person seconded to an office under another Government.”

Agreed to.

On clause 19,

moved in lines 7 and 17, respectively, to omit all the words from “In respect of” down to “employment” in lines 11 and 19, respectively.

Agreed to

On clause 22,

said he had asked the Minister specially about this clause. Since that he had come to the conclusion that the whole clause wanted alteration unless the object which the Minister desired was to be defeated. He would suggest that the clause stand over.

said he was very loth to let any clause stand over at this stage of the proceedings. He would move an amendment to the effect that a civil servant who went into the service of the Land Bank would be allowed to contribute to the pension fund on the higher scale.

thought they would require some alteration in the Bill to provide for a man who was transferred to the Land Bank service and who was eligible to receive a pension from the fund. If they were going to make provision then they must provide for men who have been transferred from a pensionable office in the Civil Service to the Land Bank.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 25,

suggested in sub-sections 3 and 4 to delete all the words from “in respect of” down to the end of the sub-section.

said it was rather an oversight. There were two overlapping clauses.

said there should be a definite rule whether a man should contribute when on leave or whether he should not contribute.

referred to sub-section 2 as follows: “If an officer to whom an annuity has, under subsection (1) of this section, been granted be medically certified, within two years of his temporary retirement, as fit for duty and be still under the age of superannuation, he may be required to resume duty in his former or in any other office or post.” He moved the addition of the words: “should he refuse to resume duty the annuity provided under sub-section (1) shall cease.”

accepted the amendment.

suggested the addition of the words “without reasonable cause.”

The suggestion was accepted by the mover.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

moved the following new clause: “An officer who, having contributed to the fund in respect of a period of ten years or more, and who is discharged on the grounds that he is incapable of discharging his duties efficiently for reasons not amounting to misconduct, shall be entitled to receive an annuity as prescribed in section 29.”

I cannot put the amendment, as it would mean increased expenditure.

said he did not think the Minister contemplated throwing a man into the street after ten or twelve years’ service. He had rendered some service to the State.

On clause 27,

moved that the further consideration of the clause stand over.

This was negatived.

said he would like to know whether by any chance men would be paid salary and pension concurrently?

That is illegal.

It was considered illegal in the Cape. Continuing, he said that he thought they ought to put a stop to such a practice. Pension and pay should not be allowed to run concurrently.

said that they had studiously avoided encroaching on the rights of persons under the existing pension laws. These rights were protected, and these people were very jealous of their rights.

Are you making it impossible in the future?

said that there were a lot of provisions in the Pension Laws that had not been inserted in this Bill. They had not looked at every case as one for treatment in this measure.

outlined the position as it had existed in the Cape. A man going on pension had three or four or five months’ leave due to him. He was paid his salary during that period. At the expiration of his term of leave, his pension started. It was impossible under the Cape Administration, and would not have been legal. Would this Bill prevent a man, in such a case, getting pension and pay concurrently in the future?

Not in the future. Continuing, he said that so far as the past was concerned, they must not tamper with protected rights.

said he hoped the Minister would agree to bring section (d) into conformity with the clause in the Railway Bill. He suggested the deletion of the words from “unless” to “misconduct”.

hoped that the Minister would accept the amendment.

said it must be borne in mind that this was very different from the railway scheme. This clause was discussed by the Select Committee, and it tried to get uniformity between the two schemes where it was possible. He hoped that the clause would be left as it stood.

thought that the provisions of this clause had been extended.

said he did not think it was fair to bring in the actuarial calculation question. He was contending that that was a wrong way of doing things. The great thing they had to consider in the way of legislation was that it should be just. They should see that the scheme was just first before they went on to actuarial calculations, and not vice versa. If a man contributed to this fund it was his money that had been contributed, and he contended most strongly that if the Government insisted upon retaining that man’s money if he were discharged then it was guilty of nothing less than robbery. He thought the Minister should consider the position.

said the hon. member for Maritzburg, North, was most anxious that no distinction should be drawn between the officers of the railway service and the officers who came under this Bill. There was a distinct difference between the two, and they should be careful lest they did these officers an injustice. Under this Bill a man drew his pension on the emoluments he obtained during the last thirty years of service: in the Railway Department a man drew his pension in respect to his entire service. If they were not careful they might have to go back to the actuary and see what effect such an amendment would have on the fund.

said he did not think that an actuary would be able to base calculations on the number of men who would probably be dismissed for misconduct. It seemed to him to be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

said that the amendment meant increased expenditure, and could not be put.

Then I move the deletion, of the whole clause.

The hon. member can vote against.

said it was the first time he had heard that the moral misbehaviour of any person was justification for robbery. That was the argument that had been advanced on the other side. It was a perfectly plain point, and the same that was decided on the railway service. There was no difference, and they could build up fifty pension schemes, but if they did not carry out their bargain a man was entitled to get his money back.

asked a question regarding the interest on the contributions.

said that the point had been raised with the actuary.

said it was a pity that there should be two Bills, one dealing with the Railway Service and the other with the Public Service. The point had been raised that a man should not be punished twice for one offence, and he hoped his hon. friend would reconsider the matter before the Bill got to another stage. As to the point that the solvency of the fund would be interfered with, the amount would be of such a trivial character that it would make no difference whatever. He hoped the Minister would try and find a way of obviating what would be an injustice.

asked the hon. Minister to think out how it would affect men with different periods of service. It would be a much heavier punishment for a man 45 years of age to be dismissed than one of 25. The latter had many more chances in life.

said there was only one of the offences that could be considered criminal, some of them were very minor offences, and there was going to be no discrimination against a man who became a member of an association which, in the opinion of the Government, was going to exercise political influence, and he could be dismissed just as if he had committed some criminal offence.

said he would very much like the hon. Minister to go into the matter and see if he could not remove the difference between the two funds. The railway fund was stronger than the Civil Service fund, and the men paid in longer and it was not unreasonable that benefits derived from the railway fund should be better than those derived from the Civil Service fund. If the Minister could meet the point without endangering the stability of the funds, he would be glad to have the matter looked into. It could not be expected, however, that the two funds could be placed on the same basis.

said it would be more satisfactory to let the clause stand over; it would be much simpler for the Minister to recast it when he had reconsidered the matter. Clauses should not be passed on the understanding that they should be altered later. The idea that one branch of the service was better treated than another led to a great deal of irritation and a feeling of injustice, and even if the idea were only imaginary it should be avoided if possible. He would move that the clause stand over.

put the amendment that the clause stand over, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

said he hoped the members would not think that a certain section of the Government service was being dealt with more favourably than another section. It was quite true the provision was different from the Railway Bill, but the class of man in the Civil Service was quite a different class of man from that in the railways. Whereas on the railways they might get many men who did not realise the consequences of misconduct, they should have in the Civil Service a class of men who if they committed an act of misconduct knew they would have to suffer for it.

On clause 28,

asked why the committee had altered it from “not exceeding” to “equal to twice.” It was all very well to be generous to lady typists who got married, and giving them a wedding present, if they gave the money out of their own pockets, but they were getting the State to do so—which was the taxpayers.

On clause 29,

moved as an amendment, in line 41, after the word “said” to insert the words “annuity or” before “gratuity”.

said that the clause covered half a page, and it was most difficult to judge now what the effect of the amendment would be. His hon. friend proposed what appeared to be a verbal alteration near the end of the clause. (Hon. member: “It is all right.”) He was assured that it was “all right,” so he would accept it.

The amendment was agreed to.

New clause 36,

moved: In line 66, after “officer” to insert “retired under the provisions of subsection (6),” and in the same line to omit “retire from the Public Service with”.

This amendment was withdrawn.

On new clause 37,

moved, in line 58, to omit “service” and substitute “services.”

Agreed to.

New clause 44,

moved, as an amendment, in line 25, before “gratuity” to insert “annuity or”.

Agreed to.

On new clause 45, Pensions chargeable on revenue,

asked what was the meaning of “revenue”?

The Consolidated Revenue Fund.

On new clause 55,

moved as an amendment in line 28, to insert “sections 32 and 42”. He said that if the words suggested in his amendment were introduced, it would provide in the case of reorganisation that when a man came back again into the Service he would be allowed to contribute to the fund once again as he did before.

said the effect of the amendment would be to increase the pension.

Let us try and discuss something on its merits.

stated that he was unable to put this amendment, as its adoption would involve expenditure.

said he did not think that this could be taken as increased expenditure. A man paid 4 per cent. of his salary, and the State paid 4 per cent. of the salary, but that was not increased expenditure. The Minister ought to consider the point, because, as far as he (Sir E. H. Walton) could see, it would not weaken the fund actuarially.

said he would not take the technical objection, but he understood that this amendment could not be allowed. This fund had been put on a delicate basis, and he did not want to topple it over, and he was told that that would be the effect.

said he hoped the Minister would consider the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. He could not understand how it would diminish the stability of the fund.

said that, in the case of a man who retired on account of ill-health, before ordinary superannuation, he could be compelled to go back within a certain time, and the Bill provided that if he were compelled to go back the years which he had served, after having been compelled to go back, would be counted for pension purposes. He was thus compelled to contribute for several years, so that when he ultimately retired he would get a pension based on the total number of years’ service. In the case of a man who was retired for reorganisation, he could not be compelled to go back except with his own consent. If they did not give him a fair prospect, he would not accept the offer to go back.

The new clause was agreed to.

On new clause 59,

suggested the omission of this clause. He said that this was a matter affecting the Civil Service of the Free State. It was a debatable question as to whether or on this clause may not be held to be a contravention of the rights acquired by Civil Servants in the Free State under the Act of Union. The clause was capable of two interpretations. In the Free State, under the Ordinance of 1904, men were not compelled to contribute towards their pension. The contention was that up to Union the Free State Government had a perfect right to constitute a compulsory pension scheme and make the Civil Servants contribute, but the point was that, as the Free State had not exercised that right up to Union and the Union Government had taken over that particular clause and had taken over the rights and obligations of the Provincial Governments they could not now say to the members of the Free State Civil Service, “Although you were in the service preceding Union, and remained in the Service six years preceding Union, and your own Government never exercised this right, we are going to force you to contribute.” If this was not an “existing and accruing right” of the Free State Civil Servants, those words in the Act of Union must mean nothing at all. The contention of the other side was that the Union Government had taken over the rights of the Free State Government under the Ordinance and they were not going to make it retrospective, but for the future were going to make the Free State Civil Servant contribute. It seemed to him that this clause in the Ordinance was a lapsed right. Would the Minister indicate what was to be the position of these men in the Civil Service? Supposing a man had been in the Free State service for 20 years and had not been contributing under the actuarial scheme of the Union Government, was his service reckoned from to-morrow?

Continuing, he asked whether the Minister had taken the advice of the Law Department in regard to this clause? It was curious that the repeal schedule did not repeal the Ordinance in the Free State, He did not know why the Minister had not done so.

These officers all come under it.

said that he had been approached on this point, and he had been asked to get a definite statement from the Minister. He had explained the matter as best he could. This section 59 did not interfere with the Free State pension law. It only reserved the right of making contributions. He understood that when these officers retired they would receive their pensions in accordance with the Free State law. It was not an infringement of existing rights. Those who had been approached by him would be satisfied with a statement from the Minister.

said he was indebted to the hon. member for his lucid statement. The officers in the Free State had not the right as contemplated under the Act of Union. They were exercising that right now, but the officer remained under the old Free State law. His period of service, however, would go from the date when he entered the service. They could not make this retrospective. They must recognise the services of these men as from the date they entered. They could call for contributions from them for the future, but past services counted without any contributions being taken from them for that period. So far for the purely legal question. When they came to the question of equity the case was even stronger. Let them consider the question of the Civil Servants in the Transvaal. At the same time that these men went to the Free State numbers of others went to the Transvaal. In 1908 they passed a pension law in the Transvaal, and they actually made all those men pay their arrear contributions as from the date they entered. Not only had the Transvaal men who entered on exactly the same condition as the Free State paid from 1908 forward, but they had also to pay backwards. Well, he did not think there was reason for such an enormous differentiation between the two cases. He thought that the men should be treated as far as possible alike. Why the Free State Government did not call for contributions earlier he did not know, but he thought that now the Government should call for the contributions, and if they did not do so, he thought they would be doing a very unjust thing in regard to Civil Servants in other parts of the Union.

The new clause was agreed to.

New clause 60,

proposed that in line 50, after the words “South Africa Act” they should insert the date “1909.”

The amendment was agreed to.

asked what the effect of it would be. Was not this officer an officer of the Provincial Council?

said that this was the case of the Director of Education in the Free State. This officer was appointed before Union, but he actually assumed office after Union, and under those circumstances the lawyers found some difficulty in deciding how to deal with his case. Finally they found it necessary to legislate.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 45,

said he thought there was some misprint there. In line 16 “of such portion” should read “or such portion,” and then after “annuity” should be “or gratuity.”

said the proviso gave the Governor-General the power to continue a man’s annuity, which he had forfeited by committing some crime, to his wife or minor children, or, it said, instead of continuing the annuity it could pay a gratuity, but not a gratuity under this Bill, but a gratuity in lieu of the pension. Therefore he would suggest that it should read “or such portion of annuity or such gratuity.”

Yes; I refer to my hon. friend.

The amendment was agreed to.

said that the proviso said the Governor-General might pay. He thought the Governor-General should pay.

said the amendment was passed, and they were now at the end of that clause.

On clause 47,

said he wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the provision of an annuity of £50 might be rather a strain on the Treasury. He thought they should limit it to £20. To strike a mean he would move that it be £25.

pointed out that when a Civil Servant was entitled to a small annuity and did not know what to do with it, he would have a chance of commuting for a sum that might give him a fresh start in life. £50 was only £4 per month, and many people, in the Transvaal especially, had come to him and asked that their annuity might be commuted, because they could get £500, £400, or even £500 for it. The hon. members would see, however, that the matter was left to the Treasury, and if it were found that there was a great demand for the commutations they could check it.

said the arguments of his hon. friend only showed the dangers more than he did. They did not wish to encourage people to commute their annuities. If a man wanted to commit suicide let them go to an office and commute the pension there. If the Government adopted this they would run themselves in for obligations that they might be unable to cope with. A man could not starve on £50 a year, but if they were to give him £300 or even £500 he might very soon lose it and be back again asking for further help.

supported the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. They did not want to encourage people to commute their pensions. Before the Bill came into the House he would like to see the Minister lay down some definite clause containing the tables of mortality with which he was prepared to deal with these commutations, so that a man might actually know what he was going to get.

said that all these points were discussed in committee, and they came to the conclusion that every case would have to be dealt with upon its merits, and that was why they selected the little word “may.”

said that when the sum was so small that a man could not actually live on it then commute it. He would like to direct attention to the phrase, “Subject to the production of a satisfactory medical certificate.” If it were to be satisfactory to the Government, it would be for a short term of life and if it were to be satisfactory to the man, it would be for a long term. (Laughter.)

said he agreed in some measure with the right hon. gentleman, but he did not agree with the limitation. He would advise the Minister to devise some way of checking the reasons why a man wanted to commute his pension.

supported Mr. Merriman’s amendment. It might be that the Government would have a run upon these commutable accounts, and might not be able to meet them. Pressure might be brought to bear to pay these amounts. What they had to do was to protect the Treasury. The committee had informed him that men who had drawn these commutable allowances had come back upon the pension fund.

Is it a fact that these retired Civil Servants can commute their pensions in insurance or other offices?

No.

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. What was the reason for granting these pensions to people simply because they had contributed and the State had contributed to a fund, so that they would not become a burden to the State when they retired. Under these circumstances the State granted a pension. When the pension was insufficient for a man to live upon, then it would be better to commute it, but it was the duty of the State to see, as far as possible, that a man’s wife and children did not suffer through these commutations being lost in unprofitable investments. People might have very large ideas of their prospects, and a clause like that might do more harm than good.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 48,

moved, as an amendment to the amendment of the Select Committee, to insert “public” before “service.”

moved the omission of the proviso, which he said contained an entirely new principle. (Hear, hear.)

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment.

pointed out that in certain of the Provinces Civil Servants were entitled to sue the Government under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If they were awarded damages in that way they should not have the right to demand damages under the present Bill as well. It was unreasonable that they should receive compensation in two different ways. In the Transvaal a Civil Servant had to elect which course he would follow, and if he obtained damages from the Government in the courts of law his other claim lapsed.

said he spoke with some degree of uneasiness, as the House had not had the advantage of reading the deliberations of the Select Committee on the Bill. Did every Civil Servant have the right to sue?

said that if a Civil Servant were injured while on duty he could claim compensation, but a man could not get damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and also under the Bill; he could not have it in both places. (Hear, hear.)

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 he would like to ask the Minister a question, to which he had never yet had a satisfactory answer. It was just to ask for the last time why a new departure had been made in the Estimates this year, which did not include in the numerical column—(cries of “Oh!” and laughter)—the natives who were public servants? He hoped the Minister would tell them why it was.

said that he thought it was a perfectly fair question, and he did not know why hon. members laughed. Rut he hoped his hon. friend would not press for an answer now. He would tell him later on all the ins and outs of the matter.

said he did not want to ask a question, but he wanted to rectify what might be possibly misunderstood—what he had said that afternoon regarding the allowances drawn by Judges of Appeal in Bloemfontein. It was merely an explanation. He would like to make it clear that he did not for one moment suggest that the allowances drawn by the Judges were improperly drawn; he merely wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these allowances were drawn.

was understood to intimate that the hon. member could not deal with the matter at this stage.

For the sake of form, I will move a reduction of the salary of the Chief Clerk by £1.

again intervened, but was inaudible.

I might forget if I wait for the Supplementary Estimates.

It is a personal explanation.

was again inaudible.

said that his point was that an allowance was paid to the Judges of Appeal of £3 per day when sitting in Bloemfontein.

again interposed.

Cannot I raise the point in this form: that the auditor should not have passed the item?

made an inaudible reply.

said that when he spoke that afternoon, it was not his intention of rising with the object of saying that it was an improper vote. He merely wished to draw the attention of the House to the curious feature that in the judicial capital judges were paid an allowance for doing their work. He never had any intention of saying they drew it improperly.

said he thought the Minister might be asked to draw the attention of the Auditor-General to the fact that in this case, according to the explanation given to the House, it seemed that at the headquarters of the Administration of Justice, so far as the Appeal Court was concerned, a payment was being made for subsistence allowance. Surely an allowance of that kind should be made only when the Court travelled from headquarters to another part of the country. The law laid down certain provisions and it applied to the whole service. It seemed to him this was a question to which the attention of the Auditor should be called. He did not know why the Auditor passed it. No extra allowance should be given to any official who was doing his duty at headquarters. If he moved from headquarters to go elsewhere to carry out his duties the Government could make such allowance as Parliament might devise; and his point was that the Auditor was not justified in passing any allowance at all while the judges were at the legal head of the Appeal Court.

said that before they passed those votes he would like to have an assurance from the hon. Minister on behalf of the Government that they would not again have a condition of affairs whereby, notwithstanding the Auditor-General and notwithstanding a law, the Government would spend a large amount of money; not alone money not authorised by Parliament, but without even taking the ordinary procedure of informing the Governor-General in advance, getting his certificate in accordance with the laws of this country and laying the warrants upon the table of this House. The hon. Minister knew that this was a most serious irregularity, and he would like an assurance from the Minister that, owing to the unpleasant experience the Government had met with during this session, in future every possible effort would be made to prevent such gross irregularities being made.

That is in the past.

Well, we don’t want it in the future.

said that his hon. friend knew that they had discussed that matter and they did not want it discussed again. The position was simply this, that the Minister of Railways and Harbours explained how it occurred. He was entirely without blame in this matter. It was simply a question of the interpretation of the Appropriation Act, and it was left to the Chief Accountant of Railways and some other officers of the railways to decide how that should be interpreted. The whole matter had already been fully explained, and he did not consider it necessary to go over the same ground again.

said it was a very important matter, and his reason for asking the question was to find out whether the Government realised the seriousness of the position, and whether it would take every precaution to make itself responsible for the Acts passed by Parliament. He did not wish to see similar irregularities occur in the future. This matter was brought to the notice of the Minister in January last, and only the other day the House was asked to pass a commitment, which had never been submitted to Parliament. It was that sort of thing that made him nervous, and he hoped the Minister and his colleagues would see the necessity of carrying out Acts of Parliament in their entirety, and so prevent irregularities of this sort in the future. They had had a great many of these irregularities, of moneys being paid and agreements entered into without the authority of Parliament, and it was on this vote that attention could be called to the matter. He sincerely hoped that this would be a warning to the Government.

said that he wished to call attention to a matter which had been worrying him very considerably—(laughter)—and he thought it would also worry the country very considerably when the facts were fully disclosed. The matter referred to the payment of pensions and leave-pay simultaneously. (Cries of “Chair.”) It came under the audit vote. (Cries of “No.”)

You can raise the point on vote 27, pensions.

said that he was struck by the remark of the Minister, who did not seem to realise the gravity of the matter. The Minister said that what was reported by the Auditor-General was a triviality and a technicality.

As a technicality.

continuing, said that the Acting Minister of Finance said that the Minister was not to blame, and that just showed that Ministers did not take a proper view of their responsibilities. They came to Parliament and got authority to do certain things, and immediately afterwards brushed aside the instructions of Parliament. In the case of the Minister of Railways he did something which Parliament absolutely prohibited him from doing. As far as the House was concerned, it had only the Minister to deal with; it could not get the officials before it. The Minister was responsible. He got an Act passed giving him certain powers, but he went outside when Parliament rose and did a thing which was directly contrary to the Act of Parliament, which he himself had introduced. This was not a technicality only; it was far more than a technicality, because the Minister must not allow himself to be misled by officials.

How many times are you going to discuss this?

I can quite understand the hon. member not wishing us to discuss it, but as a matter of fact it has never been properly discussed in Parliament. Proceeding, he said Parliament must hold the Minister responsible, and the Minister should not come forward and say, “We have broken the law. Do what you like.” He would not have risen but for that remark made by the acting Minister of Finance, that this was a mere technicality. The Minister was responsible for seeing the law carried out; it was his duty to see when an Act of Parliament was passed giving direct instructions in regard to a particular matter, that these instructions were carried out. It was not enough for the Minister to say, “I am very sorry. What will happen now?” His Department might be to blame, but the Minister was there to see that these instructions were carried out. He took a much more serious view of the matter than did the Minister of Finance.

said that the Minister referred to the matter as a technicality, but it was a technicality involving two millions. That money was voted last session for building certain new lines, and as it had been used for other purposes, he wanted to know what had happened in regard to the railways? He knew that there were two Bills on the Order paper dealing with this matter, but they were not included in the list of Bills which the Prime Minister said he intended to pass this session. If these Bills were not passed, what was going to happen with regard to the railways? Were they going to construct the railway lines which were voted last session? Were they being built?

Yes.

Well, there is another technicality, because we have not passed the Bills yet.

said that there was no question that ample provision had been made with regard to the funds. He would suggest that if this were a serious matter, and he quite agreed that it was, then this was the worst possible way to impress the fact upon the House, to bring it up on a vote of this kind. They would find that it was very difficult to justify it, and he thought it would be much better if they concentrated all their attention on the matter when the Bill came before them, or on the report of the Public Accounts Committee. They could discuss the whole matter on the Bill, which must be passed this year. (An hon. member: “But the Government are not going to pass it.”)

moved a minor amendment, relating to the clerks.

Agreed to.

said that he wished to invite the attention of the Minister to what he considered to be a somewhat large amount under the heading of “Rent.” There was an increase of £900 for rent. He thought at first that it was due to the fact that they now had in London two offices, one in Victoria-street and the other in the City; but he found that there was a further item of £425 for rent for the Trades Commissioner’s office in the City. He thought that this item required some explanation, because he understood that the offices in Victoria-street had been occupied by the High Commissioner for many years.

said that the facts were as stated by his hon. friend. The increase was largely due to the branch office which had been established in the City. Then there was a show-room at the Imperial Institute, but that had fallen into a backward state and behindhand, so that it was not in a condition really worthy of the Union. The High Commissioner then thought it would be better to have showrooms, showing South African exhibits, in a more central place in the business centre of London, and so these quarters had been hired in the City and were being brought up-to-date. In future it was hoped that much more would be done in that centre to advertise their South African products.

said that there was a separate item down for that vote. If the Minister inquired, he would find that they had to pay rent for the two buildings and still had to pay rent for the old building.

asked what steps were being taken to see that the South African exhibits at the Imperial Institute were brought up-to-date. He would like to draw attention to the backward way in which South Africa was advertised. (Hear, hear.) Nothing had struck him more forcibly when in Europe last year than the way in which other portions of the Empire were being advertised right and left; and wherever one went one was attracted by the well-displayed advertisements of other portions of the Empire. It was done in a systematic and an organised way, and, of course, it cost money. He submitted that South Africa should not be behindhand in that connection. He found that on the Estimates of the Commonwealth of Australia a sum of £30,000 was down for advertising the resources of the Commonwealth, and that had been done, and that money had been spent, for some years. One could not help being struck with what Canada was doing in every corner of the British Isles. They actually had caravans going about the old country in which were exhibited samples of what Canada produced. If South Africa were to undertake a proper system of advertising, they could attract a large number of people here, especially with the grand climate they had in South Africa. He did think that the time had come when some well-considered and persistent system of advertising should be undertaken, and could not be better undertaken than by the central, or what ought to be the central, office in London. (Hear, hear.)

said that he wished to endorse every word said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens. When he was last in England, in the first place he had not been officially notified where the High Commissioner’s office was, and had to find it for himself.

Ask a policeman.

While all the other dominions had prominent brass plates at the doors, South Africa’s had only a small one, and was most difficult to discover. He walked in and asked: “What can you show me representing the Union of South Africa?” The official in charge said that they could only show him what they were buying for South Africa (such as screws, nuts, and the like)—(laughter)—and not what South Africa produced. While he was in the office a gentleman came in and asked for a sample of wool produced by the Union; but they were not able to do so! That was a disgrace to their Union. (Hear, hear.) He did not blame the Government. If they took the other dominions, they found that the Provinces of Australia were being advertised separately, and that Canada was being advertised all over London and the principal provincial towns of the United Kingdom. The opinion he drew from the High Commissioner’s office was that there was not sufficient sympathy in that office with regard to the interests of the Union. (Hear, hear.) Of the many clerks, they found only three or four who knew something about the country, and the great majority did not know anything of South Africa. He had taken the trouble to interview the representatives of the other dominions, who stated that they made it a rule that every official in their office must come from the colony they represented. (Hear, hear.) The Chief Immigration Officer for Canada he had had a long talk with, and he said that he made it a rule that every officer in that office should be a native of Canada. (Hear, hear.) The people were treated most sympathetically there, and got every information they desired about Canada. He was very glad to find that the Trades Commissioner had an office in Cannon-street.

in endorsing what the hon. member for Caledon had said, said that he hoped that the Government would pay attention to that matter, and when one went round London, one could not help noticing what all the other colonies were doing in the way of advertising, compared with South Africa. It was a pleasure to see the excellent way in which the products of these colonies were displayed. When they did see something South African, it was generally badly displayed, and ridiculous. They could not send a better man than Mr. Chiappini to London, who had complained, however, that his hands were not sufficiently strengthened by the Government. The office was hard to find, and there were no people there who understood South African produce.

said he wished to associate himself with what had been said on this subject. It seemed to him that this question of advertising divided itself into two portions. One was advertising the products of this country. The Government spent an enormous amount of money upon assisting the production of this country. Just let the House imagine what a waste of money had taken place this year on the measures that they understood were to produce a double-fluff in South African ostriches. As to the question of advertising this country for the sake of attracting immigrants, he supposed they would say that, compared with other countries which took such trouble to attract immigrants, the Government were exercising a wise discretion in not advertising too freely the conditions of this country, otherwise they would get immigrants in even smaller driblets than was now the case He hoped that when an advertisement was framed, it would set forth the real conditions in this country, because that would perhaps direct the attention of Ministers to the conditions here, and probably show them that it would be as well first of all to alter the conditions. He thought the framing of such an advertisement would be a most admirable education to the Government as to the difficulties in the way of attracting immigrants to this country.

said that all they had listened to might be true, but who was to blame? If more money were spent the Opposition would object; if less were spent they would object all the same. He agreed that if they wanted to see their products advance they must spend a little more, but it was impossible to do anything if the Opposition continued to criticise everything the Government did.

said he welcomed the remarks made by the hon. member for Prieska and the hon. member for Caledon, who had recently visited England for the first time in their lives. He thought we in this country should make more use of our opportunities in the other parts of the world. We had an Agent-General’s office in London, which was absolutely necessary, but he thought the money spent on the office might be much better spent. We had a Trades Commissioner. He recalled the fact that, when he called at the Trades Commissioner’s office, he had not even a sample of the products of this country. He contrasted this state of affairs with what obtained in the London offices of the representatives of other dominions. Take the subject of immigration. Formerly there were two clerks in the Agent-General’s office who were called immigration clerks, and there was a notice on the door to the effect that immigration was dealt with. During the recent visit of the Prime Minister this notice was taken away, and those clerks were no longer called immigration clerks. As to seeing the High Commissioner, he was far too big a person to be seen by the ordinary inquirer and even the ordinary member of Parliament from South Africa.

Oh, no.

said that he was one of the many who were refused an interview with the High Commissioner, the same as the hon. member for Caledon. (“No.”) He was speaking from experience of those who went over from South Africa for the Coronation. He did not know of one who was satisfied with the reception he received at the Agent-General’s office.

said he was very sorry that he was absent when this discussion started, but he heard that opposition was taken to the vote of the High Commissioner.

No.

said that complaint was being made that nothing was being done to advertise the products of this country. About two months ago the Trades Commissioner sent for a list of articles that might be sent from this country for exhibition purposes in his office. It was taken up by his (the Minister’s) Department, and he was pleased to say that the public had responded very well, and within the last two or three weeks 60 or 70 cases of Colonial products had been sent across the water—(hear, hear)—to be exhibited in Cannon-street. He felt sure that that would have a very good effect.

said he would like to ask the Minister if any steps were being taken to extend the markets for the wattle bark industry in Natal.

said that he would like to say a word or two in reply to what the hon. member for Woodstock had said. He was several times in the office of the High Commissioner, and all he could say was that he had not the slightest difficulty in seeing him, of course when he was on the spot. (Hear, hear.) He had always found the people in London most courteous and willing to assist anybody from South Africa. He hoped that now they were sending samples, his hon. friend (the Minister of Commerce) would see that these samples were renewed from time to time, and not allow them to grow old and faded.

said that the High Commissioner in London always did his utmost to advance the interests of South Africa, and during the Coronation he (the Premier) personally had had the greatest assistance from the High Commissioner, who had also used his influence in every direction to assist South Africans. It was quite possible that during the Coronation the High Commissioner had been away from his office often, or had been busy helping him (the Minister) in connection with the Imperial Conference, but he was sure that Sir Richard Solomon always represented South Africa in the most efficient manner. As regarded the question of advertising, he held that South Africa was one of the best advertised countries in the world —everywhere at the Coronation festivities they found ostrich feathers or diamonds from South Africa. Their fruit had an excellent reputation in England, especially the prunes. Perhaps they could advertise a little more—but advertising was very expensive. After all, they were still in their swaddlng clothes days and would not at once take up the same position as Australia and Canada. After all, the advertising of Australia and Canada was done with the purpose of getting immigrants, not of finding a market for their products. South Africa had not, so far, been able to follow that example, because, as a matter of fact, they had only recently passed a Land Settlement Bill. In future, however, many of the difficulties of the past would be removed, and a central office had been hired, which would be kept well supplied with samples of produce. They should go along gradually, and not hurry matters. He was in favour of having people of South African knowledge in the High Commissioner’s office, and thought it would be an excellent idea to get young South Africans in the High Commissioner’s office, and change them every couple of years or so, as this would be excellent for their education. (Hear, hear.)

said he wanted to dissociate himself from the remarks of the hon. member for Woodstock, with regard to any discourtesy shown to visitors from South Africa by the Commissioner. Personally he had been treated with courtesy by the office in London, but the hon. member must remember that at the time he was in London there were thousands of people from South Africa, and surely he could not expect the High Commissioner to be at everyone’s beck and call. Again, it would be absolutely ridiculous to use the offices in Victoria-street for the purpose of exhibiting produce; if people desired to see these exhibits, the proper place to go to was the Imperial Institute. At the same time, whatever they might pay for exhibition space in the Imperial Institute was money wasted, and he was very glad to hear that the Minister of Commerce had opened a department in Cannon-street for the exhibition of South African produce.

said he hoped that the Government would not change its mind. It was not the first time the Government had been full of good intentions which had not been realised. He went on to say that at the last show of the Royal Horticultural Society in London, that body went a long way towards meeting the Government in the way of exhibiting the produce of this country. He believed that the farmers of the country were anxious to meet for the purpose of formulating some scheme, but for the sake of a paltry £150 nothing was done. With regard to the Trades Commissioner, he would say that he was a most capable, obliging, and industrious official, and no one could do more to push South Africa in the commercial markets of the world than he was doing. He hoped that the Government would do everything it could to encourage him in the good work. He would point out that in the case of Canada that the introduction of good settlers into the country had been the means of all this produce going to England from that country. He hoped that the Government would take steps in the direction of inducing those who wished to make their homes outside England to come to South Africa. He thought that was the object of the Bill which was brought into the House by the Minister of Lands, and he hoped that that particular part of the Bill would not be lost sight of in the future. So far as their High Commissioner in London was concerned, he thought he was a most admirable official, and during the recent Coronation that gentleman did all that lay in his power for the representatives—official and otherwise—from South Africa. The difficulties were extreme, and enormous demands were made upon his time, and if there were any person who had cause for complaint, then the only reason he could give for anything of that sort was a want of time. He would like to ask the Minister of the Interior whether he would make a statement in connection with the cablegram that had appeared in the Press concerning the Imperial Trades Commission. Members who had read the cablegram would have noticed with extreme regret that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would be unable to sit on that Commission, to which he had been appointed as the representative of South Africa. Members on both sides, he thought, were delighted to know that the Minister had so far recovered as to be able to move about, and they were extremely sorry that he was unable to take up the duties of a member of the Commission. He would like to hear if it were true, as stated in the cablegram, that the High Commissioner in London was to take the place of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? If that were so, he would like to know—seeing that the Commission would visit every part of the British Empire, and would be away for about three years—what arrangements were being made to carry on the work of the High Commissioner in London? He thought it was time that the Government took the House into its confidence in this connection.

said he was very sorry to hear the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Woodstock, and pointed out that the amount of work that was done by the High Commissioner’s office during the Coronation festivities was something enormous. Continuing, he pointed out that nobody looked for wool in Victoria-street, and if it were placed anywhere, these samples should be in the Strand. He sympathised with the hon. member for Caledon; but he did object to what he might call these covert attacks on a department which was not able to put up a defence. So far as the High Commissioner was concerned, he had known him a long time, but he had never heard of him being described as discourteous. He pointed out the good work that was being done in London on behalf of South Africa, and he thought it essential that that work should be recognised on this side of the water.

asked the Minister whether it was not possible for the High Commissioner in London to do something with regard to the tobacco and the wine of this country. He thought that the country was entitled to some reciprocity in this matter. So far as wine was concerned they were doing very little trade with Great Britain. Splendid wine was being produced in this country, and he thought that the industry should receive some encouragement. It was the same with tobacco, which he thought should receive some advantage over the tobacco from other countries. He did not take the rosy view which was taken by some with regard to what they produced at present, and he would point out that they were importing thirteen million pounds’ worth of stuff that could be produced here. The point was that they did not produce in large quantities; as they did not produce large amounts he thought that advertising would be a waste of money. There was cotton. They could produce the finest cotton in the world, but the quantity was not large, so what was the use of spending money on advertising. What were they going to advertise? We have to demonstrate what can be done here first. Then there was coffee. Hon. members were talking about encouraging immigration, but what was the use of doing that until the country was in a fit condition to receive them.

said he would like to take the opportunity of expressing his appreciation of the work done by the High Commissioner and his officers during the Coronation, especially Mr. Blankenberg. In spite of the fact that the work was enormous they did all that was possible for visitors from South Africa. Continuing, the hon. member was understood to suggest, amid cries of “Order,” that Government might place such an amount of money on the Estimates as would enable every member of that House to pay a visit across the water and see how things were done there. Hon. members had talked about advertising this country in order to induce settlers to come here. If that were so, he hoped that all the facts of the case would be placed before these people and that they would be told that if they wanted to get on in this country they must be bilingual. (Laughter.) Then with regard to the advertising of South Africa. At the Crystal Palace he had been greatly struck by the great and successful efforts made by the other colonies to advertise the products and attractive features of their countries. But he was ashamed of the South African display. He was sure that the people who saw it must have got a very poor impression of South Africa from it. And he thought that considering the enormous amount of money this office cost they should have some better return from it.

said that considering that their Immigrants Restriction Bill was almost identical with that of the United States, Australia, and Canada, and such a stream of immigrants was going there, he did not think it would affect them in that way. But instead of spending large amounts of money on advertising, he hoped when the Government did decide on immigration they would follow the example of the Argentine, New Zealand, and Queensland. Those countries sent experts to England and the Continent, and they selected the immigrants they desired. And the result of that was that they got a very good class. Take other countries—

The hon. member must confine himself to the question.

I am dealing with the question other members dealt with.

The hon. member must confine himself to the question.

proceeding, said he hoped when this question did come up the Government would follow the example of those countries he had mentioned, and not waste money on advertising. The countries that were wasting their money on advertising were getting the worst class of immigrants, and the class they did not want here.

said that with regard to the expenditure on this vote, they found that it had increased by £4,500. They found that clerical assistance had increased by £550, and there was one more assistant. They found that there was an increase in the salary of the superintendent of stores and shipping of £25 a year. Regarding the consulting engineer, it was an open question whether the office should keep a consulting engineer of its own, or whether it should pay a commission to one of the outside engineers when purchasing goods. He did not know whether the Government had come to a decision on that matter. There was another increase in the vote for clerical assistance, and the number had been reduced by one. The amount was increased by £600. On the whole, he thought this vote wanted watching. It always had wanted watching—he was speaking of the old days of the Cape. There had always been pressure to increase this vote without the country receiving any return for the extra expenditure.

He saw the same sort of thing going on here, without extra work being done, or the country receiving any extra return. He did not want to move a reduction, but he thought the Minister would be wise to take steps to say he was not going to allow increased expenditure in this office unless it were justified, and he (the hon. member) did not think this was justified.

said he wanted to support the hon. member. As a matter of fact, this was about the most expensive High Commissioner’s Office in London. The cost was £32,781; but they had to deduct from that the cost of buying for the Railway Department, which was £15,000. He had ascertained that the cost of the Canadian London office was £10,260, and the Australian Commonwealth Office was £1,620. The small Australian States had separate offices. He agreed with his hon. friend that they wanted to keep their eyes on this matter. Under the Cape Government there was a consulting engineer (Mr. Mitchell), who got about £800 a year. Now he saw they had him down here for £1,200. So far as he knew, Mr. Mitchell was a very good officer, but it did not seem right that they should pay him £800 at the outside, and take on another at £1,200.

said the vote for salaries had gone up, as had been pointed out, but that was largely because of the ordinary increments. He agreed that an outside office like this had to be watched; and it was being watched. But he did not think there was any undue expansion in respect of it. With regard to the consulting engineer, he was retiring after a year or two on pension, and it was proposed after that to go in for a new arrangement, such as his hon. friend had referred to.

Do you intend to take an outsider? There are firms of consulting engineers in London, but they came very expensive.

We will make the best arrangement we can. Proceeding, he said that with regard to the point which had been raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) they were extremely sorry that Sir David Graaff was not able to attend the sittings of the Imperial Trade Commission on behalf of South Africa. In the meantime, Sir Richard Solomon had been appointed to represent South Africa. The Commission would sit in London for a year, and thereafter would devote their time to other dominions.

Do I understand that the consulting engineer the Minister refers to is attached to the High Commissioner’s office?

Yes.

Well, he is the engineer who looks after the purchase of stores, and sees that we get value for our money. Proceeding, he said he understood that that gentleman was likely to retire in a year or two. Personally, he thought it was an extremely foolish arrangement to get rid of him. Before Mr. Mitchell was appointed, the Cape Government paid something like £10,000 a year in fees to consulting engineers, and, in addition, paid far more than it should have in certain stores. After Mr. Mitchell was appointed, an enormous amount of money was saved. He had done extremely good work, and the Government should not allow him to go and appoint another man who was not acquainted with the circumstances.

said that he wanted to know what the Government intended to do with reference to the 5 per cent. Cape perpetual stock—whether it was sound policy, considering the impression held by the public for many years, and which was supported by the action of the Cape Government in years past, to redeem the stock at par? He wanted to impress upon the Government the necessity of having the matter settled as early as possible. It was very urgent. He knew of one estate—there might be others —in which the executor could not wind it up because there was £7,000 in this stock, and he did not know whether it was to be redeemed at par or at the market price. He also wanted to know what steps the Government was going to take in reference to the contribution of the Railway Department for interest on capital?

said that he did not think that they need discuss either of these important matters that night. He was quite anxious to follow the suggestion which was made by his predecessor in regard to the 5 per cent. Cape perpetual stock, and bring the matter before the House and have it decided. No doubt there were conflicting opinions, and he thought that they should come to some conclusion. He did not think, however, the Government should have the entire responsibility of settling the matter, and he would bring the matter before the House. With regard to the increased railway capital, that had been reported upon by the Public Accounts Committee. That committee had taken legal opinion, and the result was to be found in the fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee, which the House had not yet had time to consider, but which, he hoped, it would have time to discuss this session and, if possible, come to some conclusion on it. He hoped that there would be an opportunity, although it might not be a long one—(laughter)—on the fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee.

said that he did not think there would be any lengthy discussion, and most of them would agree with the report. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, might have a different point of view. He was rather diffident to ask his hon. friend a question on that vote, as he had not yet had an opportunity of dealing much with that work. He wanted to know why the Government last year put such a large amount of borrowed money on fixed deposit. What it meant was that they had money at fixed deposit at various banks for which they were receiving perhaps little higher interest than they had to pay in borrowing the money.

Isn’t that good?

It is a dangerous position. No Government could do anything worse. We have the Government borrowing money and putting it in the banks at fixed deposit for the sake of a trifling difference.

also spoke, but the Minister of the Interior said that they could discuss the matter on the report, in which the hon. member acquiesced.

said that he wanted to put to his hon. friend the matter of paying pensions concurrently with salary; and pensions should only be paid from the date that salary ceased. Officers of the Cape had never been accustomed to it, and it had never actually been sanctioned by law in the Transvaal, although it was not forbidden. If they continued to pay, it would apply to all the Civil Servants they had taken over under Union. (The hon. member was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery for part of the time.)

drew attention to the same matter, and referred to £5,029 having been paid to certain officers who retired. They had, he said, been most favourably dealt with. What had been done could not be undone; but if the Government promised to behave better in future they could forgive them now. (Laughter.) They had been told: “Only wait until you get this report.” They were waiting, and he was afraid that when they did get it the session would be at an end. He hoped that those on the lower rung would be dealt with as favourably as the others.

said that that system had cost the country several thousands of pounds and had been declared illegal; and his complaint was that, although the Treasury had been warned by the Auditor-General that it was illegal, they had not stopped it. If his hon. friend gave an assurance that it had been stopped, there was an end to the matter.

replied that he had not seen the recommendations yet, and he believed that they would be quite satisfactory. The Minister was understood to say that he believed these recommendations had been made, but he had not seen them. He had no doubt that an arrangement would be made which was quite satisfactory.

said that that was not quite sufficient. These payments had been made in the face of the opinion of the Auditor-General some time since. Legal opinion had been taken, and that legal opinion was adverse to these payments. He would ask his hon. friend to give instructions that these payments should not be made in future.

moved a reduction of the vote by £960, on the items of house allowance for the Administrators. He said he did this in terms of the recommendation of the Budget Committee. This matter was carefully gone into by the committee. He thought the Administrators were well paid. The Cape Administrator got £2,500, the Transvaal Administrator got £2.500, and the Administrators of the Free State and Natal £2,000 each. As regarded the house allowance of £240 each, he did not know how these gentlemen lived in the other Provinces, but the Administrator of the Cape lived in the same house as when he was a Minister of the old Cape Government. He did not see any necessity for this extra allowance of £240 to each of the Administrators.

said a number of people in his district had suffered heavy damage through earthquake shocks. The Government had supplied some tents for these people and had said that any further assistance should be rendered by the Provincial Council out of the funds provided for hospitals and other benevolent institutions. He urged that something should be provided for cases of this kind. The Provincial Council said that the Government would render assistance, and the Government said that the Provincial Council would do so. He now wondered with whom the matter rested. Where were the people of Fauresmith to apply?

said it had been brought to his notice, since the recommendation was passed by the Public Accounts Committee, that there was a contract with regard to these house allowances. That was a material fact which was not brought to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee.

No.

said he would like the Minister to give them some information on this point, because, obviously, if there were a contract, they could not break it.

said that he would not put it in the form that there was a contract. The position was this, that these salaries were fixed for the Administrators and the allowances when they were appointed.

In writing?

Mostly they were appointed in writing. Proceeding, the Minister said that they were appointed under the Constitution for five years. The matter had been brought before Parliament, Parliament voted it last year, and he thought they were really bound, even if there were no contract The appointments were made upon certain terms, salary plus house allowance, and they were made for five years, and he thought it would be taking a wrong step, and a most indefensible one, to interfere with this house allowance now. He did not think they had fixed the pay of these officers on an immoderate scale. He thought hon. members would agree how much the decent and smooth working of the machinery of government in South Africa depended upon these four gentlemen. With reference to what his hon. friend (Mr. Wilcocks) had said, he certainly agreed with him that this matter was of very great importance. Unfortunately, they could not give relief. They could not vote money upon a case of this kind without coming to Parliament for it. They thought it would be wrong to come to Parliament for relief in this case, because what necessary relief could be given, would be given by the Administrators, but to give them compensation, that would be going too far. There was another case, there was the case of the flood in the South-eastern districts, where a large number of farmers lost everything. They also came forward and asked for compensation, and the Government of the day had to give them the same answer.

referring to the house allowance of the Administrators, said it was very difficult to understand why these gentlemen living in the same towns as they had always done should want this allowance, but the salaries and allowances of these gentlemen were fixed on the same high scale as the Ministers themselves. What he desired to call attention to was the fact that every year this expenditure had gone on increasing. In 1910 it was £3,086,921, next year it was £2,739,418. It began to fall a little, and they were hopeful that this would be permanent, but this year they found that the expenditure was put down at £3,416,185, or an increase of £700,000 over the last year and £400,000 over 1910. There was one special item which they might take as a basis for criticism, and that was general expenditure. In 1910 it was £68,660, last year it was £93,806, this year it was £108,400. Here in the two years was an increase of nearly £40,000. The Commission said that they expected that there would be an increase of 5 per cent., and if they multiplied that by three that would mean 15 per cent., but surely 60 per cent. increase was never intended by the Commission to be considered reasonable. He knew that certain small matters had to be added which would account for a certain proportion of the increased expenditure, but they did not amount to a great deal. He would not labour that matter now, because there would be another opportunity of speaking upon this point when they came to the Financial Relations Bill. He would like to call attention to another matter, however, in which they were all interested, and that was the question of education. They found that the vote for education in the Cape of Good Hope was £676,900.

The amount in the case of the Transvaal was £677,000. There was not a very great difference, but there was a great difference when they looked at what was done with this money. If one looked at the Transvaal—he had to be content with the figures up to the middle of 1910, and he would like to call the attention of the Minister to this fact—they found that 50,000 white children and 14,000 native and coloured children (a total of 64,000 children) were being educated, while in the Cape 82,000 white children and 106,000 native and coloured children were being educated. There was a discrepancy in the relative expenditure that wanted some explanation. He went on to deal in detail with the method pursued in the Transvaal of allocating these amounts, and said that he would go further into the matter on another occasion. The same would apply to hospitals, but he would deal more fully with these questions when the Financial Relations Bill came before the House.

drew attention to the niggardly way in which the Cape was being treated in so far as money for school buildings was concerned. He was a member of the Cape School Board, and they were trying to do their best, but, to all intents and purposes, their hands were tied. In the Cape Division alone they had estimates for school buildings amounting to £180,000, and they had ascertained that all the money they would get even up to the end of the next two years would only be £60,000. They knew that the Minister had not had very much time to look into these matters, but he did hope that something would be done before the end of the session. It was important, as they all knew, to look after the education of their children, and the only way of doing so was to provide school buildings at the outset. Then he would call attention to a matter which he thought was bad finance on the part of the Government. There was a sum of about £300,000 which School Boards in the Cape had loaned from private sources. For that money five to six per cent. was being paid. He thought it would be far better finance were the Government to bring in a Loan Bill covering this whole amount. The taxpayer was paying from five to six per cent., whereas they could go into the market and get money at from 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. interest. And this was going on. They were told some time ago that a stop would be put to this; but he found, even at the present moment, loans were being taken up by School Boards in the Cape Province. He wished to draw the attention of the Minister to this, and asked that before the session closed he would provide the necessary funds to pay off this, which was a burden upon the School Board; and also that he would give them an assurance that he would, during the present session, grant an additional sum of money for their school buildings.

moved a reduction of the salary of the Administrator of the Transvaal by £1. He did so, he said, in order to try and extract a promise from the Government that the Governor-General-in-Council would not give his consent to a certain Municipal Ordinance that was being introduced into the Transvaal Provincial Council, until it had been discussed in this House. He was aware that many members would be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with any of the functions of the Provincial Council, but the Act of Union distinctly laid down that, subject to the provisions of this Act, and the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council, the Provincial Council may make Ordinances dealing with municipal institutions. That was not inserted in the Act of Union without some idea that this Parliament was responsible for, and should have some control over, the Provincial Councils. It was not only a very grave matter which one felt justified in bringing before the notice of this House; but he did think that any measure which tended to deprive citizens of rights which to-day they were in possession of was a matter grave enough for this House to take notice of. This Ordinance contained provisions regarding the property qualifications for Councillors, thereby depriving persons who were now qualified to have seats on a Council of their right, also qualifications in regard to the vote, and also in the direction of depriving those who had the privilege of voting of the power to vote. He submitted that when any local body which was endowed with any representative authority took the step of disfranchising any proportion of those who were put under its authority, that was a step which was too grave altogether to be left to the unfettered discretion of such a body as that. It was one of those measures which had been taken clearly without the matter having been referred to the electorate. He thought it was due to them that the Minister should give them an undertaking that the Governor-General-in-Council would not assent to any Ordinance which took away the franchise rights, and the qualification which was enjoyed by citizens until the matter had been laid before this House, and the reasons for the Ordinance thoroughly discussed by this House. Otherwise a chance majority might inflict a very grave injustice upon those who happened to be in the minority for the time being.

referred to the question of the salaries of the inspectors of the Education Department. In the Transvaal there were 19 inspectors, of whom only five were Dutch. The maximum salary of three of these Dutch inspectors was £650, which was the minimum salary of the others. He would like to know what was the reason of this, as undoubtedly the Dutch inspectors would have to do quite as much as the others, and even more, as some of the latter knew insufficient Dutch for the purpose. He pointed out that education fell under the Provincial Council, and health at schools under the Union Parliament. He referred to the inconvenience this had caused in a case where a supposed infectious disease had broken out at a school. He hoped the Minister would give the matter his consideration.

said that the remarks of the hon. member opposite might lead to a wrong impression, and that there had been extravagance. He had said that there was an addition of £13,000 to administrative expenses, but at the same time, there had been a transfer of votes to the administrative side, and that accounted for all except £1,340. (An hon. member: “Where?”) They would find them all if they looked through the Estimates, and that showed the danger of speaking without looking through the Estimates. The increase was 1.4 per cent., and so, as far as that was concerned, there was really no case at all. As to what the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Runciman) had said, he would like to support him as to getting a more satisfactory system in regard to school loans, and he hoped that a satisfactory system would result in connection with the Financial Relations Bill. The fault did not lie wholly with the niggardliness of the Treasury, but in the local administration, because on the last occasion the money (£50,000) voted by that House could not be spent.

There is no Public Works Department.

No, it was not in connection with that, but there was some mistake in the local control of the School Board, and there should be some change in the system.

said he did not agree with his hon. friend the member for Uitenhage in blaming the School Boards with regard to this matter. It was no use preparing plans and getting ready for building until they had got the promise of the Education Department in the first place. He would like to know, too, on what authority the Administrator, who was an officer of the Central Government, went round the country promising large sums of money for schools. He was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage, disputing the figures of the hon. member tor Barkly with regard to the increase of expenditure in regard to the Provinces.

General expenditure.

He took general expenditure simply as an example, to show the increase. Proceeding, Mr. Jagger said he would give one or two instances. In Natal the cost of education in 1908-9 was £107.00 and under the present vote it was £177,000. Roads and bridges figured before Union at £89,000, and under these estimates at £297,000. In the Free State the cost of education in 1907-8 was £149,000, and in these estimates it stood at £258,000.

For which we have the cash.

Oh, you always have the cash. Proceeding, he said that roads and bridges stood in 1908-9 at a total of £80,000 in the Free State, while the figure now was £237,000. He remembered the time when the total expenditure of the Free State was under one million. Now the Provincial Council, even though it had only to do with certain public works, education, general administration, and hospitals, had a vote of £613,000. All this arose from the system of one set of men finding the money and another set spending it. He would just like to say that £2,500 was an excessive salary to pay an Administrator. It was more than the salaries of eleven of the Judges of the Supreme Court. Here these gentlemen had not only this large salary, but a house allowance as well, and he knew that one of them at least had lived in the same house for several years.

referred to a statement made by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) upon the amount put down for school buildings. The hon. member had said that it was due to the school boards that this money was not exhausted. He (Mr. Heatlie) denied this. The hon. member for Uitenhage might know a good deal about education, but he did not know much about School Boards. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. member would look into the matter he would find that there had been applications from School Boards for more than double the amount put down. He knew of one case where farmers had given a site for a boarding establishment and a case where a Municipality had given ground for a similar purpose. In each case nothing further had been done, for the reason that no money could be obtained. There was another point, but he did not know whether he could raise it now or under the Public Works vote—

Public works.

All right, I’ll do it then.

said: that they had had the same experience in the Transvaal, and he agreed with the last speaker that the hon. member for Uitenhage was wrong. They always found themselves up against the brick wall—no money. Dealing with free education, the hon. member said that it was the custom in the Cape for parents to pay school fees.

A very good thing, too!

How does that apply to the bulk of the population of the country? They have to advertise their pauperism in order to get their children educated in the poor schools.

Nonsense!

Then how do you know when a child is eligible? Continuing, he said that he had interviewed teachers on the subject, and he was aware of what was happening. He said that it was the duty of the State to educate the children of the country free.

He would give them an instance of how the children paying fees worked out. The hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. W. H. Andrews) made reference to a school at Krugersdorp which was now engaged in the work of the State. This school was not a school; it was a coolies’ dwelling place. One of the parents of a portion of the children went to the school, and on opening the door found a coolies’ sleeping-room. Was that a state of affairs that reflected credit on the Union? He would also like to know how they could expect to educate their children properly if they did not hold out any inducement to get the best class of teachers, and did not attempt to make the profession of teaching attractive? He had gone haphazard through the newspapers, and would tell them of some of the advertisements for teachers he saw there. There was a list of teachers required for Ladismith. The one was offered £100 a year, another lady assistant £90, and so on, that being the standard salary apparently of teachers. The Paarl Huguenot Seminary required a teacher experienced in botany and mathematics at a salary of £120, and the Kimberley School Board (a girls’ high school) an assistant mistress at a salary of £150 per annum. He could quote many cases, but he would not tire the House with them. He would simply say that it was time the House realised its duty to the teachers and through them their own children.

said that he had no knowledge of the provisions of the draft Ordinance which the hon. member for Jeppe had referred to, but he thought it would be making a farce of the Provincial Governments if the Union Government could set aside their decisions. These Provincial Councils were acting well within the limits of their jurisdiction, and well within the Constitution, and it would not be right if their decisions were set aside by the Central Government. With regard to the salaries of inspectors in the Transvaal, he wished to point out that the Union Parliament could not alter them. It had no authority to do so. Another body under the Constitution had to deal with that matter. And so it was with regard to the salaries of teachers mentioned by the hon. member for Springs. The sooner they settled on a sound practical basis for the definite relations which existed between the Provinces and the Union, the better. (Hear, hear.) He only hoped that he would get the support of his hon. friend opposite when he did come forward with the Financial Relations Bill, and have the matter dealt with, once and for all, on a decent basis.

said that, apparently, according to the Minister, what they had to do was to vote in a light and airy way a sum of three millions, and when Parliament raised any question as to the way In which that money was spent, they were met with an airy assurance that the Constitution provided for the spending of that money, and that the Financial Relations Bill would not alter the matter to any large extent. He thought that all members would agree with the Minister that it was not within their province that that Parliament should lightly interfere with the Provincial authorities, but nothing could divest that Parliament of its sovereign right in regard to the interests that they represented. As to the Minister of the Interior, he (the hon. member) thought that one of his duties was to keep in close touch with the institutions of the interior. He took the strongest objection to the Minister refusing to discuss that matter, and disclaiming any knowledge of it.

The amendment was negatived.

said that he would move to report progress. (Ministerial cries of: “No.”) He did not think that Parliament should be a mere machine to turn out so many votes per night. He wanted to restore some of the deliberative qualities to this House. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. member’s remarks were out of order.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

Mr. J. W. Jagger’s amendment to omit the house allowance of Administrators was negatived

urged that there should be an increase of £3,622 in the amount voted to Bloemfontein. He contended that £1,811 should have been allowed for each of the years 1910-11 and 1911-12, in accordance with the increase which had been made under the present Estimates.

referred to sub-section “C,” £16,425, and hoped the Minister would keep this matter before him. It was necessary for steamers to go round to Durban. Things had changed very much since this contract was first effected. They got their coal there at a remarkably cheap price, and it was to the advantage of the steamers to go to Durban.

said the Government had given instructions to sell the brandy from time to time without glutting the market. The sales were going on at the present time.

said he had been informed that the Treasury had stopped the sales. He did not think that was a wise policy. Merchants out of Cape Town found the greatest difficulty in getting this stuff, and he thought business principles should be instilled into the Board. If the Government did that it would not lose a penny.

said he did not think that the Government would have been wise in following any other policy. The country should not lose a penny over the business if the brandy were disposed of wisely.

moved to report progress.

said that now the Minister had got his machine well oiled, he should go on. (Cries of “Order.”)

The motion to report progress was agreed to, and leave given to resume tomorrow.