from May Campbell, of Paris, whose son, a rifleman in the Cape Mounted Riflemen, was drowned whilst on duty at Barkly Drift in April, 1911, praying for relief.

moved to omit all the words in lines 23 and 24, and to substitute: “Provided that such division shall hear and determine such cause proceedings or matter in accordance with the practice governing the division in which the proceedings were instituted and with the law according to which such last-mentioned division would have heard and determined such cause proceedings or matter.” The mover said he would give a case in point. In the Free State there were the same principles of consideration as in the Cape, while those in the Transvaal were different. Supposing a case of this sort were removed from Bloemfontein to Pretoria, it was only fair that the same law should apply to it as if it were heard at Bloemfontein. The amendment was perfectly right and fair, and the Minister’s objections were removed by the new words for safeguarding all those questions on which he had a difficulty.

seconded the amendment.

said he would point out a few reasons why the amendment should not be insisted upon. Originally he had something equivalent to what the hon. member now proposed, but the Chief Justice said there would be objections to it, so he (General Hertzog) had it struck out. So far as the law was concerned, the hon. member had worded it so that hardly any objection could be taken against it. To decide which law was applicable to a particular case was a most difficult question. When a case was removed from, say, Bloemfontein to Cape Town, the question as to which law was applicable would remain open. It was the general rule that the judge must decide it according to the law governing the transaction. Concluding, the hon. Minister said he would accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to, and the Bill read a third time.

Before this debate is resumed, may I ask the hon. Minister to lay upon the table a cable?

The hon. member is out of order. The motion that the debate be resumed has been agreed to.

said his hon. friend simply wanted to ask that a cable received from the High Commissioner be laid on the table. He would support the amendment because in his opinion this agreement, which was adopted without the consent of Parliament, was not clearly defined. He believed that if Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing this contract it would not have been entered into. Some of the clauses in the contract were very loosely drawn. For instance, they got no definition of what manufactured articles were. They were simply told that these goods had to be produced in South Africa. They had experience of concessions before. Articles supposed to be manufactured in South Africa were simply imported and a wrapper put round them stating that they were manufactured in South Africa. It would be quite possible for these people to import goods and put them through some process, and say that they were manufactured in South Africa. That was a very important point, and one that might lead them into infinite trouble. It would be very difficult for the Government to define their legal position in this matter. The agreement simply said if the price and time were satisfactory. There was a very great difference between the explanation given by the Minister and the agreement held by the contractor. The contractor said that if the price were the same and the quality as good as the imported article, then he would expect the Government to give him the order. Then if they were to call for tenders, the tenderers would know that if this company had the preference, it would be no good tendering. Therefore the Government would get no tenders at all, save from these people. The hon. member said he wanted to know whether this draft agreement was the agreement that they intended to operate. He thought it was necessary that they should get all these points cleared up. Clearly it was the duty of the Minister to see that the goods he desired to purchase were made in South Africa. They had had in the country a very unfortunate experience with regard to these concessions. A contract had been entered into by the Cape Colony, and Parliament, rather than continue it, paid a large sum of money to get out of the contract. It might be wise to do the same thing in this case. As far as he could see, the financial arrangements were still in a nebulous condition. The Minister was very anxious to get the majority report passed, but that would not relieve him of responsibility in the matter. They maintained now that Parliament had not been consulted, and this agreement should have been approved by Parliament before it was entered into.

said that the responsibility must rest with the Government, not with Parliament, to say when the arrangements of the company were satisfactorily complied with for the purpose of signing the contract. That was a responsibility which the Minister in charge of the Department must take, and he did not think that Parliament should take the responsibility out of the hands of the Executive. If a mistake were made, the Executive, and not Parliament, must be held responsible. As he understood the other day, the question of the guarantee was satisfactorily replied to by the High Commissioner as to the availability of the money. There was an amount of £6,000 for underwriting which they did not think was available in the sense of the clause. The High Commissioner, in his reply, said that he had received a written undertaking from Lewis and Marks that they would apply for and pay up in full sufficient shares to provide for £6,000, in addition to the working capital which had already been subscribed. He had seen the solicitors to the company, and was satisfied that the above amount was available for the purposes of the company within the meaning of paragraph 7 of the agreement.

said that, as hon. members would have seen, the preliminary contract with the directors was signed by himself as Minister of Mires. When the matter was previously before the House some time ago, and the suggestion was made that it should be sent to a Select Committee, he readily consented. The committee had made a very full inquiry, and the evidence was before the House, and, after reading the evidence, he was very much strengthened in the opinion that the Government adopted the right course in entering into this agreement. (Ministerial cheers.) Apart from the question of whether they should or should not have gone to Parliament, on the merits and on the facts the Government was entirely justified in signing this agreement, and it was a good agreement which could not be attacked on the merits. (Hear, hear.) He had looked at the evidence which had been produced in opposition to this agreement, and anything more flimsy he had never seen. (Hear, hear.) The principal argument was that these products which the Government was to purchase under the agreement would be manufactured in part elsewhere, and would be passed on to the South African Railways. The very object of this company was stated in the agreement to be to establish steel and iron works and rolling mills in the Transvaal Province or elsewhere within the Union. (Hear, hear.) The very works which they were to erect under this agreement would have to be in the Transvaal or elsewhere in the Union.

They cannot make the goods elsewhere, I suppose?

said that for years past there had been a cry that the Government must do something to stimulate local factories in this country. When were they going to make a start? The first move made by the Government of the day was stigmatised on the part of hon. members as if it were a crime on the part of the Government. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had said there was a fear that there would be a great steel combine in this country, as they had seen in Canada.

I have not the slightest doubt about it.

said that there was the further question of referring the matter to Parliament. If an error had been made in this case, surely it had been cured now, because Parliament had had an opportunity of going into the facts.

After the signature.

If an error were made that error has now been cured by the subsequent ratification of Parliament which we now ask for.

Not in the least.

I do not admit that an error was made. Never before has this question of scrap iron been brought by the Government before Parliament. Why this agreement should come before Parliament, I do not see. I hope that the House will ratify the action of the Government, and that the result of this agreement will be that an important industry will be fostered in South Africa.

said that if ever the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into any subject was justified, it was this committee. He did not yet see that the financial arrangements were satisfactory. The Minister said that the High Commissioner said that the capital issued had been satisfactorily underwritten. “Satisfactorily underwritten” was perhaps a very different thing to £75,000 being available for working capital, and it was most essential that this company, if it were formed, should be formed on a proper basis. The liability of the syndicate which underwrote £80,000 worth of shares was limited to £10,000. The hon. member also pointed out that there was a very considerable difference between the contract of Wright and the draft contract of the Government in favour of the company. Clause 10 of Wright’s agreement said that the Government should hold security for the purchase price of 15,000 tons of scrap at £1 per ton. Clause 5 of the agreement which the Government proposed to enter into said that the company should furnish security to the Minister to the amount of £3.000.

He pointed out that the Government, under its own report, could not sign the agreement until the guarantee matter was placed upon a proper basis. Those who signed the Minority Report contended that some matters should be put right before the agreement was signed. With regard to what the right hon. member for Victoria West had said, he contended that Wright and his company had not carried out the terms of the agreement. He was of opinion that until the Government put these things right the agreement could be cancelled. If the Minister were correct in saying that the company was not going to make profits what was the necessity of paying damages?

They have ordered the machinery.

said that Mr. Wright had told the committee a month ago that the machinery was on the way out, and he should like to know from the Minister whether that machinery had arrived. Mr. Wright was a gentleman who talked a good deal, and they had to take a lot of his statements for what they were worth. The minority considered that the rights and liabilities of both parties should be clearly defined, and the Minister had given them no assurance that this had been done or was going to be done. There was an enormous difference between the opinions of Mr. Wright and Mr. Hoy and Sir Thomas Price as to the exact meaning of certain of the clauses. The minority was hot asking the Government to do such a great deal; all the minority wanted was that these rights and liabilities should be clearly defined and in better language, so that they might know exactly where they stood. At present the point was exceedingly vague. Then with regard to tenderers, he would point out that there was a great deal of trouble and expense attached to making tenders. They had found that this company could claim to step in and do business at the price of the lowest tenderer that might come forward. Surely they were not going to use a tenderer as a stalking horse for this company; he thought the result of that would be that tenderers would become disgusted and refuse to tender. Mr. Wright told them that there was something behind this agreement besides exploiting the local ores and working up the scrap. There would be a certain amount of technical education, and as soon as the works were started it was intended to employ a certain number of young men—Dutchmen—from the various Provinces at nominal salaries, and train them.

Mr. Wright was asked whether there was an arrangement between the Government and the company with regard to the employment of these young men, and Mr. Wright said that there was only a verbal arrangement. He wanted to know from the Minister what arrangement had been entered into in this respect, and if they had agreed that one section of the population should be favoured. This was a serious allegation on the part of Mr. Wright, and he would be prepared to accept a statement from the Minister that such was not the case. He would also like to know the intention of the Government with regard to the appointment of a director. The minority in the committee did not think that the Government should become a party to a thing of this sort, and that it would be against the dignity of the Government to appoint a director to do anything of that sort. He would like to draw the attention of the House to the financial arrangements of the company upon which the Government had practically set its seal. Perhaps people in England did not know the Government of the country as well as they did, and might subscribe to this company thinking—seeing that it practically had the seal of the Government—that everything was fair and just. He pointed out that in its prospectus the company made a great point of the fact that the Government was going to appoint a director. He found that 100,000 shares had been issued at a value of £1 per share. Fifty thousand of the nominal face value of one shilling per share had been paid to the middleman, the African Steel Syndicate. Seventy-five per cent. of these shares were held by Lewis and Marks and Mr. Wright and his partner. After payment of seven per cent. to both classes of shareholders the surplus profits were divided. According to their own engineers they were going to make large surplus profits. The point was that those of the public who subscribed at the rate of £1 per share only received half their amount of surplus profit which was received by the holders of the 1s. shares. That was a position which the Government was supporting. They would be told, of course, that this was the regular way of doing business, and he understood that since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office in England a lot of people were in the habit of taking their remuneration in 1s. shares to avoid taxation.

What he wanted to know was whether the Government intended to put up the director as was stated in the prospectus of the company. This agreement was entirely different to what they were told in the past was the intention of the Government. The agreement had failed for the reason that the committee was told that the company was going to import its pig iron. Mr. Wright told them that pig iron could be produced in this country; surely, if that were so, there would be no necessity for the company to import this iron. He also wished to know why no notice had been taken of the tender of a company which he thought would have worked up the ores of this country—the British Colonial Metal Company. They proposed to do very important work and use only South African ores. Whether that company was interested in the present company he did not know, but he had his suspicions. On the whole, he thought that the Minority Report of the Select Committee should appeal to the House. They did not want to canoe! the agreement, but they did say that the final agreement should not be signed without the consent of Parliament, and until the rights and liabilities of the two parties were clearly defined and the financial arrangements placed in order. They had not got it definitely that the agreement would be signed as it stood at present. Perhaps there would be more delays, and it would be weakened again. The guarantee had already been watered down from £15,000 to £3,000. The whole thing was a scandal. He did not accuse the Government of wrong doing, but he did say that it had been misled.

said that the Minister for the Interior justified the Government’s course of action on two grounds. First, he said that it meant the establishment of a local industry, and second, that the consent of Parliament was not necessary, for the reason that the Railway Department had been in the habit of selling its scrap iron. With regard to the first argument, he would say that to his knowledge foundries had been in existence in this part of the country for a long time. Then he would point out that the company would not start exploitation for three years, or until the company was in a flourishing condition, and this clause, he thought, was easily got out of. He had been very much astonished at the argument of his hon. friend, who said that it had never been the custom to bring the sales of the scrap iron of the Railway Department before the House, because, as his hon. friend knew, that case went much further; and, in the first place, it was intended to give a monopoly to the company of the Railway Department’s scrap iron. (Some Ministerial dissent.) Most certainly it was, and so much so that they intended to give that concern preferential railway rates. The Minister of Mines had stated that the same rates would be given to any other iron foundry business in this country.

It has already been done.

said that he had a letter in his possession from a local man to the Railway Department with reference to these rates, and a reply, dated May 6 and signed by Mr. Hedley Salmon, Assist ant General Manager of Railways, who stated that the rate on scrap iron was that quoted in the Railway Tariff book for June, 1911, of ½d. per ton per mile plus 10d. per ton terminal charges, with a minimum of 2s. 6d. Another letter had been written, but Mr. Salmon had replied that he had nothing further to add to his former communication. He (the hon. member) would like to know what the assurance of his hon. friend, that the rate would be ½d. per ton per mile for 200 miles and ¼d. per ton per mile thereafter, was worth, after that case.

referred the hon. member to Mr. Hoy’s reply (Question. 373) to the Select Committee.

said he had read it.

Another case of watertight compartments. (Laughter.)

said that that was dated April 23, and the letter was dated May 15. That rate had not been applied to other iron industries.

was understood to say that that was the fault of the Railway Department.

Why did my hon. friend not consult the Minister of Railways before he made his reply? I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to this matter, and the assurance given by Mr. Hoy on page 44 of the Proceedings of the Select Committee. But not only is there this preference in railway rates, but preference is also being given to the sale of the products of this company. Various other privileges have been given. The hon. member quoted from the prospectus of the company, issued in London, and added that there was no reservation at all—the Government, according to that prospectus, having to take all the iron and steel goods that the company produced. What he objected to was not that the Government wanted to establish an iron and steel industry in South Africa, but giving all these further privileges, which gave the company a monopoly (Hear, hear.)

said that in the beginning it had been well known that there was iron ore in the Transvaal, and a large number of people wanted to see the industry developed, and the Government were in the difficulty that they had a large quantity of scrap iron they wanted to dispose of. The intention had been for the Government to have the proper furnaces built and to exploit that industry themselves. The Government had then been led astray, and were prevailed to hand it over to a company, and the result was that they were in the mess in which they found themselves now. Personally, he agreed that there was a great deal of difficulty even in voting for the minority report—(hear, hear)—and if they did, they might put the Government to an action at law for damages. He thought it would be cheaper to begin all afresh, and better to do so than to give the suspicion that at the beginning there had been something wrong. He would vote for the minority report.

said that he would like to give an explanation as to why he had signed the minority report. He went on to the Select Committee with an unbiassed mind, and was prepared to treat the evidence brought before it as impartially as possible. On going into the matter, he was quite prepared to admit that the original intention of the Government was a good one, and the desire was that some effort should be made to find what was the extent of the deposits of iron ore in the country, and especially in the Transvaal, and to see if something could not be done to “work it up” and make it a payable industry. He thought that they did the right thing in having an expert to come out and frame a report. That stated that while there was a considerable amount of iron ore in the Transvaal, comparatively little of that was suitable for iron smelting works, and there was a deficiency of lime necessary to build up such an industry successfully. Up to that point, he thought that the Government had been right, and were even justified in issuing the circular, inviting offers to utilise the railway scrap and start an iron industry. After accepting the tender of Messrs. Walker and Campbell, he did not think that they had gone on the right lines. They had no evidence why the tender of these people should have lapsed, but the Government, instead of going on with that matter, and giving other people a chance, went back to another tenderer they had previously rejected in favour of Messrs. Walker and Campbell. Instead of offering the same conditions, they had given Mr. Wright advantages they had never given the other tenderers. These special advantages, in his opinion, certainly amounted to a practical monopoly. (Hear, hear.) They had given Mr. Wright advantages, so that no one else could compete with him on the same terms. His first point against the Government was that, instead of giving all these advantages to Mr. Wright, they ought to have asked for new tenders on these special privileges which were to be given, so that others would have an opportunity of sending in their tenders, and giving the Government a better opportunity of making a contract. (Hear, hear.) From that point onward the Government had lost sight of the intention they had professed to have in view from the first. They were shown by the evidence given before the Select Committee that the profits expected to be made would not pay for the opening up of the iron ore in this country. It would be impossible to open up an iron ore industry on the conditions laid down in the agreement.

In fact, there was no intention of doing so. All the contractors wanted was to have a hold upon the Government so that the Government must buy their goods. It had been already pointed out that other tenderers, knowing that these people would have the first right to supply the goods, would be very chary of putting in their tenders, and therefore the contractors would probably in course of time get their own prices. Another objection was that the contract would probably prevent any other people coming into this country to develop that iron ore, and they all knew it was very important that this iron ore should be developed. If they had that in view, why did not the Government give facilities for opening up foundries in this country, and give a bonus for all the iron produced locally from South African ores? He thought the minority report, which he signed, gave a very fair statement of the position. The conclusions were merely statements of the exact facts as presented to the committee. The Minister of Finance—he presumed he might call him so now—stated that if an error were made it could be corrected by Parliament. On the other hand, they had the statement of the Minister of Mines that no alteration could be made now. Those two statements did not agree, and it seemed to him that the Government was now tied up in that agreement, and all they could see was that the new agreement was strictly kept. He was afraid they would have to leave it there; but at the same time he thought the Government had made a great mistake in doing anything of this sort at all—(Opposition cheers)—and they made a great mistake in having a director on the Board of this company. (Opposition cheers.) The Government had put itself in a false position, and the best plan was for them to promise that nothing of this kind would happen again. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had asked him a question, and referred to some evidence given by Mr. Hoy, the General Manager of Railways. The new rate did not come into force yet, as the discussion was still in progress—(Opposition laughter) —but he could give an assurance that as soon as the rate began to operate for the new company dealing with scrap iron, that rate would apply generally to scrap iron for all foundries.

put the question that the word “majority,” proposed by Mr. Rockey to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

said that before the question was put he would like to move an addition to the majority report which now, unfortunately, had been adopted by the House. He was sure the House had been extremely interested in the discussion, and also in the events which had taken place within the last three weeks. He was sure that the House had been extremely interested in the settling of the railway rates by a conversation between the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Minister of Mines, because they had been told that the question of the settlement of the railway rates had caused a considerable amount of dissension in the Cabinet. The hon. member for Cape Town read an authoritative letter stating that responsible officers of the railway refused to accept the statement of the Minister of Mines.

Oh, no.

I take the statement of the Acting General Manager of Railways in Cape Town, Mr. Hedley Salmon, against the statement of the Minister of Mines, because the Minister of Mines has not yet taken the portfolio, and has nothing to do with the administration of the Railway Department, Proceeding, the hon. member said he took it that this question would have been referred to the Board, and they would have discussed it fully. He had no doubt that the House had taken full cognisance of it; but to clear up matters and to make it perfectly clear, now the House had unfortunately adopted the majority report, that hon. members had voted for that report solely and entirely with the object of furthering an iron industry in this country, and that concessions were only given for the use of scrap iron to be mixed with iron ore, he would move the following addition: “That the Government be instructed in completing the contract with the Union Steel Corporation to define the terms of the provision laid down therein for the purchase by the Railway Department from the corporation of goods produced by them by making it clear that such purchases should only extend to articles actually produced and manufactured from materials either purchased under this contract or extracted from mines in the Union.” (Opposition cheers.)

In conclusion, Sir Thomas said he entirely agreed with those who said it was a wrong principle, which, unfortunately, had been adopted by Government, that contracts and agreements should be entered into before Parliament had been consulted. (Opposition cheers.) It was a principle which, unfortunately, the Minister of the Interior, notwithstanding the unhappy experience of last session, had not yet fully recognised. The Opposition would sooner see the Government mulcted in damages than ratify its action, which had flouted Parliament and had refused to ask its consent before entering into this agreement, on the understanding that Parliament should be considered as a registering machine simply to endorse resolutions arrived at by the Cabinet. That was a principle entirely foreign to our Constitution, but, unfortunately, it was held to a large extent by certain members of the Government. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped his amendment would commend itself to the sense of the majority of the House. (Opposition cheers.)

seconded the amendment.

said that according to evidence given before the Select Committee the Railway Board settled the whole business. When asked before the Select Committee if he would extend this to other industries, Mr. Hoy, General Manager of Railways, replied in the affirmative. Sir Thomas Price also recognised that principle.

They have not done it yet.

said that to produce iron in this country only from materials in this country was impossible. (Ministerial cheers.) They had to have a certain amount of imported material to sweeten up the South African iron. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), the contract was intended for the production of malleable irons, not irons produced in the ordinary smelting works. Thirty thousand tons of scrap had been sent out of the country, and Government was trying to get it used up here.

The contract was in no sense a monopoly; anyone could start a similar industry tomorrow. Government was quite at liberty to offer a bonus for the production of iron and steel in South Africa, and Government could offer anything it liked. But every time a proposal was brought forward to establish an industry in this country there always was some opposition to it. (Ministerial cheers.) If the Union Steel Corporation did not make the thing a big industry it would be their own fault, and the contract was the nucleus of the starting of an iron and steel industry in this country. (Hear, hear.)

said the whole of the arguments of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, were in favour of the amendment. (Hear, hear.) There was one company which proposed to make the smelting of ores its principal business, but the Government refused to accept its tenders. Influential men, including Sir James Sivewright and a wellknown London barrister named Hawkins, were connected with that company. It would be an advantage to the company which had secured the contract not to deal with local ores, for then the amount which was to be expended under their agreement would go to swell dividends. The remarks of the hon. member (Sir T. M. Cullinan) were quite inconsistent with his former speech.

moved to amend the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. Smartt) by inserting after “purchase” the words “after a period of three years.” That would enable the hon. member (Sir T. M. Cullinan) to satisfy himself that the Opposition were as keen on establishing genuine industries in this country as he was. (Opposition cheers.) This amendment would enable them to show that they really wanted to establish a South African industry and not a faked one.

How are you going to do it?

said they had three years to do it in. If they were never going to see an industry raised upon the products of their own country, then it was best never to have one at all. (Hear, hear.) The effect of this would be to let the people understand what this agreement purported to show, namely, that at the end of three years the Government would have an opportunity of seeing whether these people were really establishing a real South African industry. If at the end of three years the people found that they had a difficulty in this matter, then they could come to Parliament and Parliament, having satisfied itself regarding their intention, would doubtless grant them an extension of time. But if they were to be saddled with a faked industry then the agreement was not good enough. If 25 per cent. were the gross amount of pig iron that was to be used, then let them put that in the contract, but the difficulty was this, that they could not prevent the importation of pig iron.

seconded the amendment to the amendment.

hoped the House would not accept the amendments. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that they should not use imported coal. They had started new industries by giving them protected tariffs. They started a candle industry, and they protected it heavily, but would they say that the candlemakers should not import tallow?

But you did not give them a monopoly.

But we give them better than that, we give them differential rates and heavy protection. Continuing, the Minister said that supposing the company were unable to deal with refractory ores was the industry to stand still? If they were determined to see this industry started, then don’t let them attach conditions to it to make it impossible. With regard to the appointment by Government of a director on the Board, it was not the intention of doing that just now, but supposing after three years the Government were not satisfied, then they might see fit to appoint such a director.

said he was extremely sorry that the Minister had not accepted the amendments moved by himself and his hon. friend, because the amendment was raised solely to meet the contention of the chairman who signed the majority report. The only justification for the agreement was that they were going to establish a genuine industry in the country. If these two amendments were adopted it would give the Government an opportunity of going into the open market after three years and purchasing the goods they required.

said he had been informed that a certain quantity of cutlery had been manufactured from South African iron ore and placed upon its merits. Neither the Minister of Mines nor the Minister of Railways told them how these experiments had been effected. He entirely supported the amendment, because it proved—at least he was informed —that iron ore could be worked in the country. If the Government really intended to develop the iron industry of the country, then they should not only limit, but prohibit the introduction of pig iron.

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

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

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

said he would like to ask the Minister of the Interior a question in regard to the recommendations of this committee, which came before the House the other day. The Treasury raised the question, in an indirect way, as to whether they were bound by the recommendations of this House and the Senate in these matters of pensions, grants, and gratuities. They seemed to him to take the view that the recommendations of this committee, adopted by this House and the other place, were merely recommendations to the Government, and not a distinct instruction. He thought it would be a good thing if the Minister would make a statement to the House to assure people that, in the event of a recommendation being made by the committee and passed by this House and the Senate, its adoption would be regarded by the Government as an instruction to carry out the wishes of the House.

said he did not think it would be possible really to adopt any other course than that which the hon. member had referred to. Once the Houses of Parliament had passed a resolution recommending a petition, he thought the Treasury were bound to accept it.

moved that the House go into committee.

Agreed to

moved this committee recommends: (1) The award to J. C. O’Hare, formerly chief constable, district of Tulbagh, of an invalid pension equal to one-fifteenth of one-half of the average salary during the three years preceding his retirement for each complete year of service; to take effect from the date of his retirement. (2) With reference to the petition of E. S. Harris, the award to J. Harris, formerly police sergeant, Paarl, of an invalid pension equal to one-fifteenth of one-half of the average salary during the three years preceding his retirement for each complete year of service; to take effect from the date of his retirement. (3) That the breaks in the service of W. H. Mitford-Morton, teacher, from 1st August, 1895, to 30th September, 1896, and from 1st April, 1909, to 30th September, 1910, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (4) That the break in the service of A. M. du Biel, teacher, from 1st April, 1910, to 30th June, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service.

Agreed to.

On the fifth report,

moved this committee recommends: (1) The award to I. A. Rees, formerly magistrate’s clerk, of a gratuity equal to the amount of his contributions to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund, to be paid in monthly instalments of £5 each. (2) The award to T. C. McDonald, widow of the late A. McDonald, forester, of a gratuity of £60, payable in monthly instalments of £5 each. (3) The award to I. M. Meredith, widow of the late W. C. Meredith, formerly Rector of the Grey Institute, Port Elizabeth, of a gratuity of £100. (4) That the break in the service of A. Baigrie, teacher, from 1st November, 1906, to 31st December, 1907, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (5) That the breaks in the service of E. C. Stahl, teacher, from 1st January, 1895, to 31st December, 1895, and from 1st July, 1905, to 31st July, 1907, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (6) That the breaks in the service of W. E. Verschuur, teacher, from 1st July, 1889, to 31st December, 1893, and from 1st July, 1805, to 30th September, 1902, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (7) That the break in the service of A. Cameron, teacher, from 1st July, 1897, to 31st December, 1898, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (8) That the break in the service of J. F. Louw, teacher, from 1st January, 1908, to 31st March, 1910, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service, and that the petition be referred to the Government with a view to the condonation by the Education Department of the breaks in petitioner’s service from 1st July, 1910, to 31st March, 1911, and from 1st July to 30th September, 1911. (9) That the petition of M. A. Barry, teacher, be referred to the Government with a view to the condonation of the break in petitioner’s service by the Education Department. (10) That, in view of the legal opinion furnished to them by the law officers of the Crown, dated the 29th April, the petition of J. P. Kruger be referred to the Government for consideration.

Agreed to.

moved that the papers from the Government recommending an award to J. M. Tsamse, formerly interpreter, Ngqeleni, of a pension of £35 13s. 7d., be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration.

Agreed to.

moved that the petition from P. D. Swart (No. 7) be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration. He held that insufficient consideration had been given to his case. Mr. Swart was an old official of the South African Republic. He had been seriously wounded during the war, and still had to undergo various operations. Furthermore, Mr. Swart had stood good on a bond for a certain Mr. Niemand, who had finally failed to pay. This aggravated his case.

agreed that the case was one deserving of sympathy, but if they had to deal with persons wounded in the war in the manner suggested it would cost a lot of money. But the fact was that a large number of these cases came before the Select Committee, which, however, did not consider itself authorised to deal with these people. Besides, these people had been provided for by the War Casualties Commission in the Transvaal, but as Mr. Swart still possessed land he had not received as much as he would otherwise have received. As there were now no available funds to meet such cases, the only way would be to place a sum on the Estimates.

supported the case of Mr. Swart, which, he held, was deserving of further consideration.

said he did not think it complimentary to the committee for his hon. friend to want to send back the recommendation because he thought it had not been properly considered. He would say that this case was not considered once, but many times. Where would the thing end? He thought the Government should reopen the question if it had to be reopened. Unless his hon. friend had further evidence there was little use sending it back.

The motion was negatived.

On the sixth report,

moved this committee recommends: (1) The award to Agusta R. van der Spuy, formerly teacher, of a pension calculated on a total service of fifteen years: to take effect from the 1st April, 1912. (2) With reference to the petition of H. H. Orren, formerly private, Cape Mounted Police, and supporting petition from A. Musgrave-Newton and 67 others, the award to petitioner of a pension in terms of section 15 of the Cape Police Act No. 12 of 1882; to take effect from the 1st April. 1912. (3) The award to G. C. Grant, formerly Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cape, of a pension calculated on a total service of 17 years as a teacher, with salary at the rate of £450 per annum; to take effect from the date of his retirement. (4) That the Superintendent of Education, Natal, be authorised to place the name of A. Day, teacher, on the register for pension purposes, in pursuance of Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal). (5) That the break in the service of D. R. van Alphen, teacher, from 1st January, 1908, to 31st March, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (6) That the break in the service of J. H. Pienaar, teacher, from 1st July, 1908, to 31st December, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving far petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (7) That the break in the service of M. J. Botha, teacher, from 1st July, 1898, to 30th September, 1902, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (8) That the break in the service of J. A. Liebenberg, teacher, from 1st January, 1901, to 31st July, 1906, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (9) That the break in the service of F. M. B. Paterson, teacher, from 1st January, 1910, to 27th February, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (10) That the break in the service of M. T. Pepler, teacher, from 1st July, 1910, to 30th September, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (11) That the break in the service of T. P. Faure, teacher, from 1st January, 1908, to 30th September, 1909, becondoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (12) That the petition of E. C. van Gorkum be referred to the Government with a view to the payment of certain moneys which appear to be due to the late W. M. van Gorkum, as stated in the report furnished to your committee by the Acting Under-Secretary for Finance, Pretoria.

Agreed to.

moved that the petitions from G. Montague (with supporting petition from G. Taute and 70 others (No. 9), from L. P. White (No. 27), and from S. J. Chandler (No. 29) be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration. He said Mr. Montague had joined the service when he was too old to receive a pension. He had now left the service, and was unable to provide for himself. The cases of White and Chandler were similar, and he hoped the committee would see their way to agree to his suggestion.

hoped that the committee would not agree to the proposal. If they took the case of White, his hon. friend did not know all the circumstances, and in the man’s own interest the less said about the case the better. The committee had given all the attention it could to the cases which had come before it, and no good would come of the case being referred back. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was negatived.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew.

On the seventh report,

moved: This committee recommends: (1) The refund to C. M. Dewes, in monthly instalments of £5 each, of the contributions to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund by H. C. Dewes, formerly mail officer, General Post Office, Cape Town. (2) The award to M. Duthie, widow of the late W. Duthie, constable, of a gratuity of £50, to be paid in monthly instalments of £5 each. (3) The award to P. M. Sheehan, formerly gaoler, of an amount representing 90 days’ full pay leave, which was standing to his credit at the date of his retirement. (4) That an extra statutory pension at the rate of £59 8s. 6d. be granted to W. J. Higley, formerly Controller of Railway Telegraphs, from the 1st April, 1912, in addition to the statutory pension of £85 13s. 4d. already granted to him. (5) The award to the following dependants of the victims of the recent Table Bay disaster, viz.: (a) M. A. S. Stanley of a pension of £18 per annum, (b) L. Pengelly of a pension of £15 per annum, (c) J. C. Schietekat of a pension of £12 per annum (to take effect from the 1st April, 1912), and to (d) E. J. C. Broad of a gratuity of £15, and (e) E. S. Pluke of a gratuity of £10. (6) That the break in the service of M. F. van der Merwe, teacher, from 1st April, 1900, to 31st December, 1907, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (7) That the breaks in the service of J. F. W. Crankshaw, teacher, from 1st April, 1891, to 31st August, 1893, and from 1st April, 1902, to 15th May, 1904, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (8) That the interruption of two years and ten months (from June, 1900, to April, 1903) in the continuity of the services of V. A. Miller, as a teacher in Natal Government-aided schools, be condoned and disregarded for the purpose of enabling her to apply for a pension under Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal). (9) That the breaks in the service of A. E. Lean, teacher, from 1st January, 1900, to 31st August, 1901, and from 1st April, 1906, to 30th April, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service.

Agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends that the petition from P. Hertslet be referred to the Government for consideration. He alluded to the details of the case, and said that he wanted to know if the Government would take the case into consideration, and have a proper report upon the case. It seemed to him that there was a certain amount of hardship.

This was agreed to.

said that the case of L. V. Bikitsha was one in which a small amount of money might have been granted to Mrs. Bikitsha, who was the widow of Captain Bikitsha Veldtman, an historical Fingo chief, who had done yeoman service for the Government in time of war, and if any widow deserved a gratuity it was this one, and he moved that the petition from L. V. Bikitsha (with supporting petition from S. St. J. Henley and four others) (No. 5) be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration.

said that many worse cases had been before the committee.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to report the resolutions to the House.

This was agreed to, and done, and leave was granted to bring up the report at the next sitting.

moved that the House go into committee.

Agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends the following: (1) Lease of site on Railway Reserve at Cookhouse; (2) excision of portion of

Elandsrivier Reserve, Uitenhage district; (3) grant to Messrs. Shepherd Bros., at Bosman’s Crossing; (4) grant to Village Management Board at Maclear; (5) sale of erf, in township of Mqanduli; (6) grant for school purposes in Zangqingqi’s Location, Idutywa district; (7) lease of farm Waterval, Gordonia district; (8) sale at Springfield, Cape district; (9) grant for school and library purposes, at Willowvale; (10) sale of Government cottage, at Port Alfred.

On Recommendation No. 3, Grant to Messrs. Shepherd Bros., Bosman’s Crossing,

asked for some information.

replied that in connection with the improvement of the Bosman’s Crossing Railway Station, the Railway Department required some land, and the grant had been given in connection with that.

On No. 8, Sale at Springfield,

asked for some particulars of this piece of ground at Springfield. The Cape School Board had a piece of ground there, he said.

replied that under a title deed, dated May 5th, 1888, three morgen of land being part of the land known as Springfield were granted for school purposes and later were extended for Church purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends: (11) Lease, for whaling purposes, at Stompneus Bay, Cape.

said he noticed that this was one of several recommendations of sites in reference to the erection of whaling stations. He would like to ask whether it was considered advisable to go on indiscriminately granting sites for the erection of whaling stations in South African waters. In an earlier part of the session he asked the Prime Minister whether he would take steps for an inquiry to be made as to the supply of whales—whether the indiscriminate slaughter of whales going on in South Africa should not be regulated by the Government. There was a fear that history might repeat itself in this matter. The industry in the southern seas and the northern seas was an extremely good and profitable one at one time, but it grew so rapidly that whales became scarce. He believed in the northern hemisphere there was a close season for whales. (Hear, hear.) What he wanted to put to the Government was whether they would not go into the whole question of the whaling industry. If would have to be done in conjunction with neighbouring Governments. It was a big industry, and was expanding very rapidly, and he wanted the Government to be cautious in this matter and take steps to see that they did not kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. They should have a close season, during which the killing of whales would be prohibited. Then he noticed that these sites were granted at a nominal rental of £2 a year. He wanted to ask the Minister why the one site in Walfisch Bay was put up for public tender last year, whereas the others had been given without calling for tenders. So valuable was the industry now that the Walfisch Bay station was leased to a Glasgow firm at an annual rental of £1,260. It seemed to him that called for some explanation—why the new sites were being given simply because people were asking for them at a rental of £2 a year, when a great deal of revenue might accrue to the Government if they were put up for public tender.

said the idea of a close season and the restriction of slaughtering whales was now under consideration. (Hear, hear.) However, he believed there was some difficulty in that because there were means of killing outside the boundary line which marked the extent of the Government’s control of the sea. Steps were being taken to stop all further grants of sites for whaling stations, because there were enough and there was a danger of the whales being exterminated. With regard to the last point, the Walfisch Bay site was actually Government land. Where low rentals were given the people were using their own land, and the rent was only for the right of access to the foreshore between high and low water marks.

said he was quite satisfied, and he thought the House was also, that the Minister was desirous of restricting the slaughter of whales. But he did not think, by restricting the number of whaling sites they would restrict the slaughter of whales. If they restricted the number of sites they would simply restrict the number of people dealing in the whale trade, and it would not have any effect on the number of whales killed. It made for unfair competition and created monopolies. That was a serious matter. The Minister, by restricting sites, would, in his opinion, merely press hardly on individuals who might have the opportunity of going in for this industry, which was a very flourishing one and one that might bring in a very good revenue to this country. The only way to prevent the undue slaughter of whales would be by creating a close season.

hoped the hon. member would not oppose the grant going through. It was a very important industry, and the Government only controlled three miles of water. However, he quite agreed with the hon. member that arrangements should be made for a close season.

said he quite agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Baxter); but not with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley). A year or two ago there were licences given to private sealers in the Cape Colony, and that permission had absolutely destroyed the sealing industry to a certain extent.

Business was suspended at 12.59 p.m.

supported what the hon. member for Gardens had said at the morning sitting. In Canada an application for a whaling station had to be lodged for two months, and a licence costing £100 had to be taken out. In Scotland, the killing of whales within three miles of the shore was prohibited. There was also a close season of five months’ duration in Scotland. Other nations were taking care of their whaling industry, but South Africa allowed people to do as they liked.

thought the whaling companies should pay an annual licence of at least £250. Why should the country give this source of profit to others for nothing? The hon. member then complained of lack of details in the committee’s report.

said he fully agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, but maintained that quite sufficient information had been given the House. The whaling industry was receiving the attention of the Government.

said he was chairman of the Durban Whaling Company, and pointed out that the profits made by his company went to Natal people. The industry furnished employment for a large number of people, so that Government should be careful before it interfered. The whales were captured while passing through South African waters, and if they were not caught here they would be elsewhere.

said last year he applied on behalf of a Natal gentleman for a site at St. John’s for a whaling station, but he was refused point blank. It was queer, however, that the following year sites were granted all over the place. As to a close season, that could not prevent whalers fishing outside the three miles limit, and going to Luderitzbucht, say, with the oil and whalebone.

said the statement of the last speaker was incorrect; he (the Minister) did not say that no applications would be granted. Those that were granted were very few, as compared with the number refused. His department was not stopping Colonial industries, but it did not grant applications for sites for whaling stations unless they were strongly supported by people living in the locality.

The recommendation was agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends the following: (12) Lease, for Fish Cannery, at Lamberts Bay. (13) Grant of portion of Salt River demarcated forest area, Knysna Division. (14) Grant, for school purposes, at Tainton. (15) Grant, for cemetery for Mohammedans, at Ceres. (16) Withdrawal from demarcated forest lands of two portions of farm Oograbies, Namaqualand. (17) Grant, for whaling purposes, near Groenfontein, Bathurst. (18) Grant, for whaling purposes near Waaigat, Caledon. (19) Grant, for whaling purposes, near South Gorah, Bathurst. (20) Grant of right to lay pipes over Crown land at Camp s Bay.

said he would like to call attention to No. 17, because he wanted to know whether this grant came under the same category as the others. It seemed to be inferred that he wanted to kill this whaling industry, but that was not correct. What he wanted to do was to keep it alive.” (Hear, hear.)

said that this was one of the cases that were exceptional. This was a case where all the local authorities at Port Alfred asked for the concession.

said what he wanted to ask was why these people for a matter of £2 a year should get a valuable site. Why should they not throw these sites open to public competition? At Walfish Bay they got £1,200 a year for similar rights as these. When they were selling these valuable rights they ought to get as much for them as possible.

said the fullest publicity had been given to this. It was advertised in the “Government Gazette” and in the local papers.

said it was quite possible to have the fullest publicity, but that was very different from calling for tenders. He was going to ask the Government whether this particular application came from Messrs. Schroeder and Co.

hoped the committee would not agree to the recommendation of the committee.

hoped the committee would agree to the deletion of the following recommendation: “Your committee are of opinion that, in view of the number of applications already granted, it is undesirable that further applications for sites on, or rights of way over, Crown lands should be granted for the purpose of establishing additional whaling stations in the Union.” He considered that it was unwise to grant any whaling monopolies in South Africa.

hoped the Government would agree to the deletion of this recommendation, which meant giving these people a monopoly. He did not think the Government should debar people from having their applications considered. This industry gave a considerable amount of work to poor whites. Under the circumstances he thought it was desirable that the Government should reconsider this matter.

said at the best this was but a pious expression of opinion. Seriously, it meant nothing, but he hoped the Government would take the discussion to heart and see that they did not go on granting these applications indiscriminately.

said hon. members, although they kept referring to these grants, did not realise how many applications had been refused. If they granted all the applications for whaling, they would find that this was not a pious resolution. What they were going to do was to deal with the matter in a common-sense, businesslike way. There had been numerous applications. The first plan was to start the industry and encourage that industry being carried on here instead of in the territories of their neighbours. Now the applicants had become so numerous that they thought there would be enough to deal with the industry without destroying it. It was distinctly the opinion of the Government that, except in very special cases, there should be no sites granted.

pointed out that some little time ago he received a communication from some people who were interested in this matter and, on making inquiries, he found that a resolution, had been passed, according to the third report of the committee, that it was undesirable to make further grants for whaling stations. That report was dated May 30. The fifth report, which was dated June 11, contained a recommendation of a further grant of a lease for a whaling station. He would like the ruling of the Chairman as to whether it was in order to put this further recommendation in view of the resolution contained in the report of May 30.

said that, if this resolution in the report of May 30 were carried, he took it he could not put the recommendation in the fifth report. He proposed at this stage to take the fifth report and revert afterwards to the other report.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends the following: (21) Grant, for church, at Kuruman. (22) Grant, for Cemetery, at Cala. (23) Lease for whaling station, at Gouritz River. (24) Sale of drill hall site (Lot 17) at Cathcart (in the event of the same not being required by the Department of Defence).

referring to No. 23, said that this application stood on a different footing from the others. Application was in the first place made to the Provincial Administration. They prepared the papers and they sent the papers to the Government. This recommendation was passed by the committee because it had been prepared some time before the Committee passed the resolution mentioned in the third report.

asked if the hon. member did not see that the resolution in the previous report made the adoption of this recommendation impossible?

said that, if they restricted the number of these permits, they would confer an important right on existing whaling stations. It was only fair that something should be paid for that right. They were giving practically a monopoly to existing stations. Under the circumstances, he hoped the Minister would come forward next year with some proposition for a licence.

said it would be quite open to the Provincial Council to go into the question of imposing licences. Under the special circumstances of the present recommendation, the committee thought it should he entertained favourably. The application was simply one for giving access, the applicant was dealing with his own ground, and the application had been sent in before the resolution had been adopted by the committee.

said he did not see why these applications should be refused at all. This was an industry which would give employment to many men. While the recommendation was made in the present case, other applications had been refused by the committee. There was a syndicate which wanted to establish a whaling station in False Bay. That was refused. What was the result? In Table Bay there was a ship that had brought a number of men and they were going to carry on the industry on board that ship.

said that the hon. member must address himself to the committee’s recommendation.

I am arguing that we should grant these licences. We ought not to refuse them. The Minister has said he would only grant licences in cases where there are special circumstances. Continuing, the hon. member pointed out that if these companies were granted licences the result would be that a number of men would be enabled to get employment. Was it right to refuse these licences to local companies and thereby encourage foreign vessels to come here and do the whaling? He thought that the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was worthy of consideration. He thought that licences of £100 each should be paid by these foreign ships before they were allowed to whale in our waters. He did not think they should encourage foreign ships to come into these waters for the reason that the country did not reap a penny benefit.

Let it be clearly understood—

pointed out that the Gouritz River application was before the committee. The committee would revert later on, and then discussion would be allowed on the general question. This was a particular case.

The recommendations were agreed to.

moved: This committee is of opinion that in view of the number of applications already granted, it is undesirable that further applications for sites on, or rights of way over, Crown lands should be granted for the purpose of establishing additional whaling stations in the Union.

said he thought he was misunderstood by the Minister when he spoke last. He was attacking the principle of a monopoly in connection with this matter. It was better to have ten companies with one steamer than one company with ten steamers. He pointed out that some of these companies had been making 100 per cent. per annum on their capital out of this business. He thought the Minister should consider the question of either restricting the number of these whaling vessels or putting on a fairly heavy licence, or proclaiming a royalty on each whale killed. He referred to the case of the sturgeon in England; why could they not have the same sort of thing here in connection with whales. He did not think they should refuse the applications for these factories, for, as it had been said, ships were coming here from abroad. He moved the deletion of the clause.

was proceeding to ask a question when

said that the hon. member could not revert to another clause.

said he thought it only right that the Minister should lay down some definite principle upon which the Government was going to (proceed in the future. He wished the Minister would give an expression of opinion on the subject. He was for granting sites wherever they could be granted.

said he thought that our people were being placed at a disadvantage in comparison to other people along the coast.

hoped the Minister would accept the proposal for the deletion of the clause.

No.

I am sorry, for the Government’s own sake. Continuing, he said that when the history of this country came to be taught in the future, the Ministry of this day would be set down the Ministry of Monopolies. If they went on as they were going, then this country would be run by monopolies. Immediately they placed a limit on the number of concessions that were granted they created a monopoly to that extent. The Minister had spoken about these grants being made on common-sense and business principles. Well, he would like to call the attention of the committee to this point. These sites were granted at £2 apiece, without the locality, the nearness of a market, and other matters being taken into consideration. Was that doing things on common-sense and businesslike lines?

said he did not see why sites should not be granted if they were available.

said the Minister had referred to international negotiations in regard to this matter. That was all the more reason why these applications should be granted, provided, of course, that the stations did not interfere with the health or comfort of the people in the neighbourhood. Of course, he did not mean that sites should be granted in Table Bay or Durban.

Why?

The stench is abominable. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said he thought that the negotiations alluded to by the Minister would be hastened were these applications granted. He moved to omit all the words after “granted,” and to substitute “it is most desirable that international arrangements be made, dealing with the question of the whaling industry, and pending such arrangements applications be granted on their merits with proper regard to the health and convenience of the public.”

said that at the last time he objected to a grant being given, and he would like to say that many of these applications were not granted because they would spoil bathing facilities on some of the beaches. Every case had been considered very carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that there were quite enough of these whaling stations in South Africa already. His own opinion was that there were too many.

said that he thought that the object of the committee had been to protect whales; but it was going to make no difference if these applications were refused, because the present companies would extend their operations. He thought that the hands of the Government ought not to be tied.

who was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery, hoped that the amendation would be accepted by the Minister.

said that if they went granting applications right and left, how could they go to their neighbours and ask them to restrict. They must show that they had done their best themselves to restrict these stations first.

said that that was just what the Minister was doing —giving these things right and left.

asked what the Minister intended doing with regard to ships which came to South Africa with large crews, who fished in our waters and competed with the existing stations. There was one such vessel in the Bay at the present moment, with a crew of 80.

said that they were going to do what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said —they must make a beginning, and show a clean sheet themselves, and show others that they had done something themselves.

Is a whale game or a fish? (Laughter.) He added that game and fish were put under the Provincial Council. He did not want to see every application granted. There was a danger that the whales might be exterminated in some quarters. He was going to divide the committee on his motion.

Mr. Struben’s amendment was negatived.

called for a division. (Cries of “Oh, no.”) The hon. member subsequently withdrew.

The recommendation was agreed to.

The resolutions were thereupon reported to the House and adopted, Nos. 1 to 24 being transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

said that it was universally allowed that the native question was the most important one in South African politics, and the Native Affairs Department was the most important department they had, and a mistake they made would have lasting consequences on a large number of people. Salaries, generally speaking, in that department did not seem to compare well with the salaries in other departments, and this department had most important matters to carry on; and he thought he might say that the officials were very hard worked. He would like especially to know from the Minister why the salary of the Secretary of Native Affairs had been reduced from £1,500 to £1,260. He thought if any secretary deserved the £1,500 the Secretary of Native Affairs did so.

The Minister of Native Affairs required to be a person with statesmanlike qualities —(Opposition cheers)—and capable of looking far ahead and moving slowly and carefully. He did not say this in the way of adverse criticism of the Minister, because he believed in the Minister they had a Minister who endeavoured to carry out those qualifications. But he would like the House to understand some of the difficulties with regard to the native affairs of South Africa. They had in the Cape Colony the principle of individual tenure, and it would most likely be extended. It was a sound principle, and it was the principle of giving people a permanent and fixed interest in the land, and they owed that to that great statesman, Cecil Rhodes. In the Cape Colony the natives were not being elbowed out. There was still room for them. But if they went to the Transvaal they found another state of things. They found no large native reserves there for the natives. After the natives had been conquered, instead of reserving the land for the natives the land was surveyed and given out to the whites, who now, in the majority of cases, did not occupy it. The result had been that the natives had no land of their own to live on. There never had been any reserves put apart for the natives in the Transvaal except during the last ten years, when locations had been set apart; but they were not sufficient for the whole native population there, and that was one of the great difficulties that confronted those responsible for the carrying on of the native policy. In Natal, or Zululand, they found there was a demarcation of the land. A certain large portion which had previously been occupied by the natives was set apart for European occupation, and another large portion set apart for native occupation. It was divided, but what they found, as a matter of fact, was that the natives instead of living on the part set aside for them, were to a large extent living on the part set apart for the Europeans, because it was better land. And that formed a great difficulty again. When they came to the Free State, there was no great native question in the sense of the other Provinces. The natives that were there were living mostly on the farms of the Europeans, and were doing work for the latter, with the exception, of course, of the small reserve occupied by Maroko’s people. Then in regard to the Squatters’ Law. It was not before the House, but it had been published in the “Gazette,” and he would venture criticism, not from a party point of view. He hoped as long as he lived he would refuse to consider the native question from the party point of view. They should endeavour to do that which was right and just by the native population, and that was the only way in which the right solution of the native question could come about. But he must take exception to the proposals put forward by the Government in that Squatters’ Bill. As he had already said, there were 100,000 natives in Natal living on the white people’s property, and there were about the same number in the Transvaal.

I am listening entirely to the hon. member, if he will only go on.

said that, with regard to the Transkei, the Council system had been successful there, but he would ask the Minister whether even there a little more of the elective element might be introduced into the composition of the Council. He believed that the more they gave the people the right to rule themselves, the easier would the solution of the native question be. The people desired to elect their own Councillors. We could not everlastingly shut the door on these aspirations. We must wisely, slowly, and circumspectly open the door, as far as possible. He was not speaking now of the franchise. He would urge that in any scheme of taxation that House should consider the circumstances of those territories which were not in the Union—Basutoland, Swaziland, and Bechuanaland. It would depend to a very large extent whether these territories were willing to unite with the Union of South Africa, as they hoped some day they would, on the taxation that was levied throughout the Union. In Basutoland the whole expenses of the administration were defrayed with a surplus out of a 20s. but or poll tax and the revenue from Customs. He objected to the idea that the white people and the native people were natural enemies. He believed that by just and fair treatment we could weld these people to us. It had always been his idea that there should be two streams of people in this country—the one the white people, and side by side with them another stream of coloured and native people also going forward, not hindered in any way, not debarred in any way from going as far forward as they could. But, as regarded any question of mingling socially, he did not think that would ever come. “Let us,” said Mr. Schreiner, in conclusion, “let us, by God’s help, carry on a native policy that will be just and fair, and tend to the welfare of both sections of the population.”

said serious complaints had been heard as to wrongful appointments being made to positions in the Johannesburg pass office. He wished the Minister to inquire into the matter, and see how much ground there was for these complaints.

asked a question with respect to an amount of £4,000—what portion was to be devoted to dipping tanks and what amount to fencing? The Minister was doing a wrong to the natives of Natal by not erecting these tanks, and an injustice to the white people by allowing East Coast fever to grow. If the whole of the £4,000 were spent on dipping tanks it would not be too much. Then there was an amount down for interest on Native Trust. Some of these settlements were of no use to the natives, and he wished to know from the Minister whether it would not be possible to put some white settlers on this land. Perhaps these white settlers would be able to make use of these irrigation works.

asked a question with reference to the Zululand Native Trust.

That’s included in the Natal Native Trust.

said he was sorry to hear the hon. member for Umlazi say that little use was being made of the settlements, because he understood that the natives were taking kindly to these irrigation works.

said that he would like to call the attention of the Minister to a very important matter. He saw down on the Estimates a certain sum for officers of the Native Labour Department who were redundant Perhaps the Minister might be good enough to give the committee a small account of what was being done in this department—the relation between native labour and this expenditure. He was sure that anybody who read the papers could not but be shocked by the accounts they saw in the system of crime among the natives employed on the Rand. He remembered, when at Pretoria four years ago, being told by a high judicial officer that under the system adopted in regard to natives in gaols they were creating a criminal class among the natives, a thing which had been hitherto unknown. They had seen a shocking case which came to light the other day of a sort of organised criminal society on the Rand, and that was what that high judicial officer had told him would be likely to result. He had no doubt that the Minister was as much shocked as any of them, and he wanted to know what steps were taken to stop that sort of thing. If such a thing spread in a district where there were ten or more natives to one European, life would be made unendurable. The European, the dominant race, was to blame; and native touts were employed by Europeans and encouraged to swindle at the racecourses, and there was the illicit liquor traffic—there was the low-class European who had native runners, and the whole state of affairs was such that, were it known and stated to that House, the most callous man would be shocked. The Dutch Reformed Church, out of its liberality—and it was more liberal than any community in South Africa—provided large sums of money for missions. Where? In Central Africa. Well, that was laudable, no doubt; but it would be more laudable if that money were diverted to missions on the Rand. (Hear, hear.) They wanted some moral effort to deal with that hideous mass of crime that was going on there. For the natives of South Africa, Johannesburg was a criminal university at the present time, as he had said before, and it was a word that had been used against him. The Native Affairs Department had done good undoubtedly in one respect, in watching over the natives and improving their material condition—not their moral condition, because they could hardly do that. The only way out of it was to enclose the natives as they did at Kimberley—in compounds; and there should be some additional way of looking after these natives. If they were callous, neglected things, and let them go on their own way, that evil would spread, and if they once got natives to be thorough criminals in the whole of South Africa it would be a bad day for the white race in South Africa. He knew that the Minister was as anxious—even more anxious, perhaps, than he was—to put these things straight. He thought that the number of officers in that department should be increased, not diminished, and that they should try to cope with the evils which they now had. It was not their duty to the natives only, but also to themselves. He hoped that the Minister would take his remarks in the spirit in which they were meant, and try to do some good and get conscience waked up as against a great national evil in South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

said that he agreed with the right hon. gentleman that the state of affairs on the Rand was deplorable, but the right hon. member ought to take the bull by the horns and Plump for separation straight away, and should not support a close association between black and white. He did not agree with him that close compounding have the effect he desired. Did the right hon. member forget—he must have forgotten that on the Rand they had large numbers of natives, estimated to be from 75,000 to 90,000, working in menial capacities in households? Granted that what the right hon. member had said was the case, in his opinion and that of a great many other people, the chief reason of what was known as the “black peril” was the employment of male natives in households. The wonder was that they did not have many more occurrences than they had seen in the papers. Continuing, the hon. member said that the Minister had said in February that if the death rate amongst tropical natives on the Rand mines was not reduced, he would stop all further importation. The death rate at the time, he stated, was 34.3 per 1,000.

He had the report for the following two months, March and April. In March the deaths totalled 41.2 per 1,000, an increase of 7 per 1,000; and in April the total was 45.5, so that there was a rise in the death rate in two months amounting to 33 per cent. He wanted to know if the Minister was now going to give effect to his promise and prohibit the further importation of those natives from the tropics. Another point that he wished to draw the Minister’s attention to was the question of concession stores. These stores were most unfair to the natives and to the trading population. The Minister might say that they were doing everything they could in the direction of regulations, and they could have as many policemen as they liked, but he would tell them they had innumerable opportunities of getting round the law and the regulations. The position was that wherever these concession stores were there the natives had to deal to the detriment of the other traders. The only way to prevent that was to abolish the system of concessions at once. He knew of an instance where a mine compound manager paid a concession store-keeper £40 a year to send the natives to his store in the compound. He wanted to give one final instance of the pressure brought to bear on the natives, even by the mining companies. A certain mining company, employing about 2,000 natives, offered to them as an inducement to them to do more work, not increased pay, but a certain value of meat. The harm was not effected so much that they only got their return in meat; but they had got to get their meat from a certain store. That was unfair to the natives and the other traders, and incidentally, it threw a very illuminating sidelight upon how these natives must be fed. He hoped the Minister would look into that, and that he would prevent the further importation of natives from the tropics, and see to the abolition of the concessions.</p> </speech> </debateSection> NEW BRIGHTON LOCATION. Sir E. H. WALTON (Port Elizabeth, Central)

asked whether the Minister had yet made arrangements for increasing the accommodation for natives at the New Brighton Location, Port Elizabeth.

said he would reply to the last question first. The hon. member knew that was a long-standing matter. It was a very difficult thing to deal with because of the rapid growth of that location, which under the Act was controlled by the Government. And so far as the location was concerned, and it was an advantage to the town of Port Elizabeth, he thought the hon. member would agree it had been tan entire success. The money spent upon it was really fruitful; that was to say, productive of almost a profit. Still it was difficult to increase it on a large scale. He had an amount on the Estimates for it, but he was told that that was not sufficient, and he was asked for another £10,000. His own feeling about this matter was that locations of that sort ought to be, so far as money was concerned, managed by the Municipalities themselves. Just a word or two with regard to some of the matters that had been referred to. He would not traverse the whole of the hon. member for Tembuland’s speech, because he thought he intended it to be more an expression of his views than anything else. He suggested that the Government should use portion of the £340,000 received in taxation of native labour for the benefit of the natives He thought the hon. member must have forgotten that the Government had announced its intention as part of the settlement of the financial relations of the Provinces to allow that £340,000 to the local Government in the Transvaal. Then the hon. member suggested they should increase the number of members elected to the Native Council. He thought the elective element on those Councils was sufficient.

said he thought the statement of the Minister of Native Affairs was satisfactory as far as it went. He had no wish to infer that the Minister was neglecting his duty, but to draw his attention to the state of affairs, and also the attention of the House and the country to it. He read an extract from a Rand newspaper in regard to the evils of the illicit liquor trade on the Rand, in which it was stated that the strongest possible point about the system was that the principals went free. Many of those concerned were known to the detective department, but legislation had been so timidly drafted that it was a matter of the greatest difficulty to secure convictions. The article referred to the demoralising effects of the traffic on the women, who were drawn in too, and to the dens of infamy into which they drifted, and also to the fact that many of the people of this country were being drawn into this terrible traffic. They could not, Mr. Merriman went on to say, take up a newspaper without seeing that, unfortunately, the people of this country were getting corrupted, the natives were getting corrupted, and the whole thing drifted on from bad to worse. These dens were known to the police. Surely it was within the possibilities of civilisation to clear these places out, and to stop these things. It was not such an enormous community, after all. These people were known, the trade went on, and it was going on from bad to worse. If this had been a trade in stealing diamonds it would have had to be done long ago. It was only a trade in demoralising people body and soul, and unfortunately they, as a Legislature, and the police, apparently, did not go at it as they would if it had been stealing diamonds. They were sharp enough to compound the natives when it was diamonds they were stealing. They must go to the very root of the matter, which were these infernal dens that were kept in Johannesburg for immoral purposes and selling liquor. These accounts which he read from time to time of what went on filled him with horror. He had plenty of these instances at hand, and yet they did nothing. He did hope that something would be done in the future.

said he was sorry that the right hon. member for Victoria West depended upon the sensational accounts which appeared in the Johannesburg papers for his information on this subject. The state of affairs was bad enough, without the right hon. gentleman giving accounts of the traffic that were misleading. He told the committee that the law was so loosely and timidly drawn that it did not give the officers a chance of bringing these people to justice. He would point out that the liquor law in the Transvaal was as strict as it could possibly be. The right hon. gentleman was mistaken when he said that these dens were dotted along the streets in Johannesburg. The great bulk of this traffic was carried on along the reef, and not in the imaginary dens which the right hon. gentleman had pictured. It was not a case of the looseness of the liquor law. No law could stop this traffic so long as they got hundreds of thousands of natives together from outside, and herded them together under unnatural conditions. He dared say that they could stop the traffic to a considerable extent by compounding these men and making them slaves.

You damage trade.

You damage a good deal more than that. Continuing, he said he would put it to the right hon. gentleman, if he felt this matter so keenly, why he did not raise his voice more often against the increasing importation of these natives from outside. The Minister of Native Affairs, too, should give more assistance Last time the Minister said that he could do nothing, because his hands were tied by an arrangement entered into with the Chamber of Mines. He thought that was a very sorry reason for the Minister to give that House. They understood that so long as the Minister was satisfied that the death-rate was quite reasonable, so long would these natives be brought into the Union. They had a serious enough problem to tackle with respect to the whites and blacks within the Union, without bringing in other natives from outside our borders.

said he could not allow some of the statements that had been made to pass unchallenged. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman when he said that the compound system at Kimberley had been greatly in the interests of the natives. The natives were now in better health and better off altogether. Of course, the trades people of Kimberley made a great sacrifice in this respect, because it made a great difference to trade, but on the whole the results had been wonderfully beneficial. He wished to give a denial to the statement of the hon. member for Fordsburg that these natives were slaves. They signed the six months’ contract of their own free will, and more often than not they signed on again without leaving the mine. Then he pointed out that even when these boys went homo they came back to Kimberley in preference to going to Johannesburg and that alone showed that the state of affairs at Kimberley must be better than at Johannesburg. With regard to illicit diamond buying, he remarked that to a great extent they had put a stop to the traffic. They had made a great sacrifice at Kimberley, in so far as the compound system was concerned, and to have the compound system at Johannesburg the Johannesburg people must make a similar sacrifice.

asked for a statement from the Minister as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the poll tax in Natal:

was understood to reply that the taxes had been suspended for the time being.

asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries what he intended doing with regard to the question of rebates on certain goods in bond which were sent up north to the Congo. As to the Weights and Measures Bill, which was called for by the commercial community, and a resolution in favour of which had been passed at the East London Congress, he could not see that there was any objection to it—(some dissent)—and he hoped that the Minister would bring it forward early next session.

asked whether the Minister could give them some explanation as to the appointment of Secretary to his department. He thought that it was in March last year that the gentleman who was now Secretary for Commerce was told that he had to retire as Collector of Customs of Natal, and by way of consolation they had given him nine months’ pay, six months’ in lieu of notice, and three months’ for leave, amounting to £933, and at the same time a pension. Only five months after they had discharged him they brought him back and re-engaged him at £1,500 a year as Secretary for Commerce. He wanted to know on what business principles the Minister had gone to justify his procedure. It was not very encouraging for officers of the Department to see someone brought in like that. (Hear, hear.)

said that he would like to congratulate the Minister on the non-production of the Weights and Measures Bill. His object in rising was to ask the Minister’s assurance that the standard weights and measures (which figured on the Estimates) were not on the metric system. (Laughter.)

asked how matters stood as to organising statistics of the productions of South Africa? In that matter South Africa was hopelessly behind the times. (Hear, hear.) The whole mercantile community was at a serious disadvantage, because there were no statistics whatever on which to base their exports and imports. Nothing practical seemed to be done, although that matter was brought up year after year. The statistics would be for the benefit of the producers themselves, and not only of the mercantile community.

asked whether the Minister considered that the present Customs dues were in the best interests of the country?

said that they were not now dealing with Customs.

said that he would like to know what the Minister had done to further the industries of South Africa. He did not know whether the Minister approved of the matter they had been discussing a few hours ago—creating a monopoly on scrap iron.

referred to a certain grant in aid appearing on the Estimates, and asked what return the Minister got, and how long the process was to continue.

drew attention to the duty on unset diamonds being 11 per cent., and that on diamonds set in rings being 12 per cent.

said that that came under Customs.

And industries, too.

said that he would like to know why the Minister was granting only £300 towards the Imperial Institute?

said a very important matter had been discussed lately, and he would like to ask the Minister if he had taken any steps to be consulted in the direction of protection of commercial interests in connection with the new mail contract. As the Minister of Commerce they looked to him to take some steps for the protection of the commercial community.

said he would first deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). He referred to the subject of the deputation mentioned by him some months ago. He (the Minister) then promised to give the matter his attention, and said that if the merchants were prepared to pay the extra cost involved in having these stocks sent away as open stocks the Department would meet them.

The trouble is, you gave the deputation no reply.

I gave the deputation a reply at the time.

No, no.

said he understood the position was that the deputation was to inform the Department whether they were willing to pay the extra costs involved. The hon. member asked what had become of the Weights and Measures Bill. He did not think that question was a little bit necessary. If he would look at his Order paper he would see what had become of it. (Laughter.) “Now, in regard to Mr. Baxter for Cape Town,” proceeded the Minister.

Order, order.

The point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Baxter).

“Order, order,” and laughter.

The hon. Minister must not refer to the hon. member by name.

There are so many hon. members for Cape Town; I don’t know which he is.

Cape Town, Gardens.

proceeded to say the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, asked what was being done in connection with the statistics. He did not know what statistics he referred to.

Statistics of production.

said he might say that the Department took that matter up, and notices were sent out throughout the Union; but he regretted to say that the returns sent in were somewhat unsatisfactory. They were all right as far as they went, and they gave them much valuable information; but they were not complete, and that made him realise that to get those returns legislation would be necessary, and it was possible in the next session legislation in that direction may be introduced. Mr. Oliver asked—

Cries of “Order!” and laughter.

said that the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Oliver) asked some questions regarding the Customs. He did not quite follow him.

It is in the next vote.

The hon. member for Durban—(is it?)—and the hon. member for Weenen (Messrs. Henderson and Meyler) required information regarding the vote for the Imperial Institute. Proceeding, he said they would notice the vote this year was £500 less than last year. The reason for the reduction was because it had been decided by the Government, instead of exhibiting products at the Museum at South Kensington, to exhibit them in Cannon-street. But since this vote was put on the Estimates, it had been decided to increase it back to £800.

Why?

Because sufficient notice was not given to the Imperial Institute that this reduction would be made, and when the Supplementary Estimates come up, it is my intention to move the extra amount temporarily. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Whitaker) asked whether he (the Minister) had kept in touch with the negotiations in connection with the new mail contract in the interests of the commercial community? He could inform the hon. member that he had done so. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) asked some question, he believed, about weights and measures. The same reply to the other hon. member would apply to him.

said the same reply would not suffice. He asked the hon. Minister for an assurance that the purchase of standard weights and measures would not be on the metric system.

said the amount of £500 was for the purpose of carrying on the old system.

said the hon. Minister had forgotten to answer his question regarding the vote for the National Union.

It gives me very great pleasure to answer that question. Proceeding, he said he had nothing to do with the retirement of the present officer in the office for Commerce and Industries. He was retired before his (the Minister’s) time; but when, unfortunately, it became necessary, or, rather, when the late occupant of the office (Mr. Honey) retired, owing to ill-health, he communicated with the present occupant (Mr. Mason), and he was glad that this gentleman would be able to accept the position. He thought the country was to be congratulated on having obtained the services of a gentleman with such worldwide experience of the Customs and Excise. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan), he understood, explained that it was bad business, having paid out large sums to this officer when he retired, to take him back again. He would point out that by taking him back the Government saved £800 a year in pensions. This officer was engaged on a special contract for three years, and during that period his pension was suspended.

I don’t know exactly where the saving comes in. There are men in the service who could have taken up this job.

£700 a year?

There are officers in the service who receive more than £700 a year. I know men who have grown grey in the service of the Cape Colony and who could have taken up this position. There was a man in the Transvaal service who was quite competent to fill the post. It was a piece of extravagance to have gone abroad for a man for this purpose. (Hear, hear.)

said the Auditor-General, in his report, stated that Mr. George Mason was retrenched as from March 1, 1911, which was subsequent to the date the Minister assumed office.

said he understood that the Customs Bill was going the same way as the Weights and Measures Bill—into the waste paper basket. (Opposition Laughter.) What was the policy of the Government in connection with dumping?

wished to know what the general policy of the Department was to be. Evidently it only existed for drawing three cheques a year. It paid, in salaries, well over £4,000 a year for an expenditure in other directions of under £2,000. He suggested that a salute should be fired so that the public should know when this business was done. (Opposition laughter.) There would be a general rejoicing throughout the whole nation to feel that the industrial future of the country was being so admirably guaranteed. (Opposition laughter.)

said that as far as the Department generally was concerned, it was an absolute sham. (Hear, hear.) The whole of the work was done previously by other departments. He supposed it had been shifted on to the Minister so as to give him something to do. The question of industrial development was one of enormous importance. A year ago the Minister seriously told them that although he did not understand much about commerce he understood industry, and that he was going to push forward the industries of the country. The Minister had been a year in office, and he (Sir Edgar) wanted to know what he had done. What he wanted to ask the Minister was, whether the Government had a policy, and, if so, what was that policy? (Hear, hear, and cheers.)

said there was no change of policy nor any question of change of policy. He was sorry that he could not reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. It was very difficult for him to answer a question of that kind. The hon. member appeared to lose sight of the fact that he (the Minister) had other departments under his control, and he also forgot that the Government had promised to bring in a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. This was a very big subject, and required a great deal of consideration. It was hoped that a Bill dealing with this subject would be brought in next session.

wanted to know whether this grant of £500 was to be continued, and if so, what they were going to get for it.

said that as far as £ s. d. was concerned, he did not think they would get a great deal from it, but good work was being done for the Union.

said the hon. Minister was sending samples to London and exhibiting them in Cannon-street. He hoped these samples would be kept fresh. It would be far better, he thought, if this work were done by his own department. He considered the expenditure of £500 a waste of money, and therefore moved that this amount be deleted.

said that he would support the amendment, unless they got more information. If the Minister had more information he should give it to the House.

said he hoped the hon. member for Cape Town would not persist in the reduction he had proposed, as he thought the National Union was doing good work.

The proposed reduction was negatived.

said that he wanted to move a reduction on the Minister’s salary.

We cannot go back.

said he hoped the Minister would report progress, and he moved accordingly.

The motion was negatived.

said that he would like to ask whether the Minister or any officer in his department had received any applications from representative bodies—

Which item?

I am looking for it in the Estimates. (A laugh.)

The hon. member cannot go back. There are only two items left in this vote.

said he would move a reduction of £50 in (e) incidental expenses, his object being to call attention to what he considered was an absolute failure to grasp the real position. He asked if any money had been used for postage on letters to representative bodies of the trading community in reply to requests from them to review the policy of the Department towards those trading communities.

said the hon. member was out of order.

The amendment was withdrawn.

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