as Chairman, brought up the sixth report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, as follows :

Your committee, having considered the papers referred to them relating to the proposed lease to the Cradock School Board for the purposes of an Agricultural School of the farm Driefontein in the district of Cradock, the property of the Railway Administration, beg to report that upon the information before them they are unable to make any recommendation thereon.

The report was ordered to be considered in Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

as Chairman, brought up the eighth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, as follows:

Your committee, having considered the various petitions referred to them, beg to report: That they concur in the following recommendation contained in the memorandum referred back to them, viz.: The award to J. M. Tsamse, formerly interpreter, Ngqeleni, of a pension of £35 13s. 7d. per annum, to take effect from the 1st January, 1910.

They recommend: That the petition of W. G. Townsend be referred to the Government for consideration.

They are unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained : J. S. de Villiers (with supporting petitions from B. van der Hoven and others, J. P. Grobler and others, and G. P. Pretorius and others), J. Pitcher, K. J. Damane, F. W. Brampton, C. M. Fisher, F. J. Smallman, M. Campbell, E. J. Batteson, J. Denham. With reference to the petitions of J. S. Marwick and C. Long, your committee are unable to make any recommendation thereon owing to the fact that certain witnesses whom they wish to examine are not at present in Cape Town and that the committee would be unable to obtain their attendance having regard to the near approach of the end of the session. With reference to the petition of F. T. Brown, your committee are of opinion that the application for relief should be deferred until such time as petitioner retires. With reference to the petitions of C. Larkin, H. R. L. Smith, D. J. Retief, T. Wesson (second petition), D. Collenette, S. K Hauptfleisch, W. Makenana, F. E. Slavin. A. J. S. Young, C. T. Simpson, and H. J. McDonald, your committee regret that, as they have not received the necessary reports on the subject matter of these petitions, which were called for from the various Government Departments, they are unable to report thereon.

The report was ordered to be considered in Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

announced that His Excellency the Governor-General, having been informed of the proposals contained in the first and second reports of the Select Committee of the House of Assembly on Native Affairs, had been pleased to give his consent that, so far as His Majesty’s interest is concerned, the House may do therein as it shall think fit.

Estimates of expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours, year ending 31st March, 1912.

formally moved the second reading of the Bill.

said that, before the motion was put, he would like to call the Minister’s attention to a serious complaint which had been made on the Witwatersrand of a shortage of trucks for conveying coal from Witbank to the Rand. This was by far the most profitable system of railways, and it was very desirable that steps should be taken to maintain an adequate supply of trucks, as the gold mines were being affected by the shortage of coal supplies.

said that at an earlier stage the Minister had stated that the matter of railway rates could be raised at this stage. He knew that át was a very important and very great subject, and he also knew that hon. members wanted to get home. (Hear, hear.) What was more, there could be no adequate discussion, and, even if there were, it was not probable that discussion would make much impression at this stage. There was one particular point he would like to refer to. He did not quite understand the principle upon which railway rates were determined. If hon. members would go into this question and consider it closely, they would see that if the Minister took the whole of the Union railway system as a Union and said simply, “ My business, in order to carry out the terms of the Act of Union, is practically to balance revenue and expenditure, so that the railways as a whole are run at cost,” it must be quite clear that the most frightful injustices would be done, because one portion of the railway, one system of railway, one class of goods, one section of the community, one part of the country, could be made to pay ten times over what it ought to do, and that profit was lost in the general accounts, and other portions of the country or of the railway or classes of goods were served or carried at a Joss. He would take an extreme example to show what was in their minds. He would take a case that had often been quoted, even at the risk of being called provincial. This proposal was introduced into the Act of Union by the delegates from the Transvaal. The principle which they advocated, and which had often been expounded by the Minister of the Interior, was the principle of carrying as nearly as possible at cost, so as to facilitate and encourage the development of the inland portions of all the States of the Union. Unless they knew on what principle rates were going to be fixed, it was quite clear that that could be entirely defeated, that costs could be piled up on certain parts, and they could be made to pay all the profit, while other parts got services at a considerable loss. “Business principles,” as they were understood by business people—

Hear, hear.

Not as they are explained by the right hon. the member for Victoria West—“business principles” should, for instance, make different charges for retail goods from the charges you make for wholesale dealings. If any man in business were to attempt to charge the same price for wholesale lines that he legitimately got for retail lines, if he sold per ton at the same rate as per pound, he would do no business at all. He would be in the Bankruptcy Court in no time. So it is with the Railways. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in the Cape Colony, which they were always encouraged to look to as a model of all that was good —(laughter)—in fact, the be-all and end-all of South Africa—even in the Cape Colony in the old days when they built a line they stipulated that a certain rate should be charged until the line was in a position to pay the interest on the capital. Why did they do that? Because they felt they were giving a certain section or a class, or an area, tremendous facilities which they did not otherwise have. They gave them ready and quick transport and gave them trains instead of ox-wagons; they thought it was good business to do so, and if they departed from that principle they would be doing wrong. That was the precedent set by the Cape Colony, and that showed that, even in the Cape Colony, they understood what business principles meant in this connection. Now it had been proposed at different times to build new lines at considerable cost for the purpose of opening out certain areas, and the question arose as to how much expansion they were going to get by building these lines. There were plenty of areas in South Africa where there was a possibility of great expansion; but there were other areas where the possibility of expansion was extremely limited, and they knew that if they built a railway at a certain cost they would have a loss for ever and ever, and people would be taxed merely to give a bonus to those who could not contribute anything to the general expansion of the country. The right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) said the other day that the railways were carrying at a very low rate—practically at cost.

A new start.

No; it is what the right hon. gentleman called a “jim-jam.” It is a jim-jam, and it is one worth considering deliberately, because it is a good, sound, business principle. Proceeding, he said it was introduced by business people who had tested it and made some success out of it. It was not introduced for the sake of trying an experiment on others. They had tried it in business. Now the Minister had told them that he was going on the principle of developing the country, but how could they develop the country if they were going to have a uniform rate per mile per ton, regardless of the volume of traffic, cost, and so on?

said that he understood the hon. member’s great complaint was that the policy of the railways stopped development.

No; I never said so.

That it stops development.

No; because I don’t know what the present policy of the railways is.

Well, the greater part of the hon. member’s speech falls away.

Try to be a little serious.

I understood him to talk about the Witbank line—am I correct? (Ministerial cries of “Yes.”) Well, the hon. member told us to look at the iniquitous charge in connection with that line, and in his next sentence he told us of the enormous development that had taken place.

I never said anything of the sort.

I don’t think the hon. member recollects what he did say. In fact, he goes round in circles, and is intoxicated with his own verbosity. Proceeding, he said there was a great deal to be said for what the hon. member had stated in regard to equal rates, but he would warn his hon. friend the Minister (Mr. Sauer) about listening to the voice of the charmer. He himself began his career as Commissioner of Railways, and he entertained the same views with regard to giving special rates to different localities, and so forth. Well, he was very soon brought to book not by the ordinary man, but by the commercial element in the country, who insisted that there was only one practical way of doing things, and that was by having a uniform mileage rate. It was Port Elizabeth that brought him to book, and gave him a very sorry time. Afterwards the mileage rate worked very much against Port Elisabeth, and they then fell upon him to have special rates. If they departed from the principle of a uniform rate they would lay themselves open to a charge of jobbery, of giving undue favouritism, and things of that sort, and it was only in the very last session of Parliament that his poor friend who was now occupying the unenviable position of Minister of Railways was man-handled because he had given special rates to the Breyten line with a view to developing that area, which he said was capable of development. He gave special rates, and he was man handled for doing so by the hon. member for Fordsburg.

Then they took occasion to come in with the doctrine that the only safe rate was a uniform rate, because unless they did this they would be accused of jobbery and undue favouritism. There was a wiser man than the hon. member for Pretoria East—the late Prince Bismarck. (An hon. member: “No.”) “Oh, yes, I think he was wiser than the hon. member for Pretoria East,” continued the right hon. gentleman, “at any rate, he is better known. Prince Bismarck was obliged to take over the Prussian State Railways and lay down the doctrine of a uniform mileage rate much for the same reason.” He (Mr. Merriman) had always said that larger quantities, such as train or truck loads, should be run at cheaper rates, but it was pointed out that this was favouring the larger merchants unduly. This was a very good argument, because the Government had to consider the interests of the whole community. So they had a cheaper rate for coal, say ¼d. or ½d. per mile, then if they got a remarkably good coal area they were going to make much more profit than in a poor area. What took place in the Transvaal with regard to the carriage of agricultural produce? The agriculturists in the Transvaal used to pay exorbitant rates for the carriage of their traffic, but was it the Prime Minister that did this? No, it was the Railway Board. The agriculturist in the Transvaal was not shown very much consideration in these days. This was a matter that should be considered. The Railway Board kept up their high rates in the Transvaal, much more than was charged in the Cape Colony. The Cape was charged 2d. per mile, whereas they were charging 4d. per mile over the Transvaal section.

It was the same Prime Minister they had then.

I am not here to stand up and defend everything the Prime Minister does, but this was not the Prime Minister, it was the Railway Board, and these Transvaal people went on to say it was the little Cape lamb that was troubling the waters so much that the Transvaal wolf could not drink. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that they paid a great deal more for carrying goods to Paarl and Worcester than they did in the Transvaal for the same distance.

That is exactly the opposite of what you said two minutes ago.

We pay more for imported goods, but not for agricultural produce. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said he was rather inclined in theory to favour the train and truckload principle, but that policy was received with such declamation last session and the cry that they were treating the big man to the disadvantage of the small man, that he thought the Minister of Railways would be well advised before he entered upon this.

asked the Minister whether he was going to make some statement with regard to the railways? Last year he budgeted for a surplus of £40,000, but this year, according to the figures, there was going to be a deficit. His estimated revenue amounted to £13,139,000, and his expenditure to £13,675,000, and he brought against that his surplus of the previous year, £456,(XX), but there still remained a deficit of £219,000. In arriving at these figures, he would also mention that he had taken into account £500,000, which he intended should go for the reduction of rates.

drew the attention of the Minister of Railways to the profits made on coal carried coastwards. These rates, he urged, should be reduced, and he hoped that when the general question of the reduction of rates was being considered, the coal mines in the North would not be forgotten. A number of coal and copper mines were being opened, but the working costs were too heavy, and only by a reduction of rates could they be made payable. Another matter he wished to raise was in connection with the question of rates on the carriage of stud stock. A truck of 42 sheep to Pietersburg cost £7 10s., and that was too much. During and after the war practically all the cattle in the Northern Transvaal had died. New people had come into the district, but owing to the expensive transport, they had brought very little stock with them. He wished to associate himself with the remarks of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick in regard to the rates on branch lines. As a rule, those branch lines led to the outlying parts of the country, and if the rates were high, they would have to pay too much to get anything from the coast. Another matter he wished to mention was that the railway vote for Pietersburg last year still appeared on the Estimates. There had been a delay in the construction of the line, owing to the people of the district suggesting another route. If the Minister were not satisfied after the survey of the other route, he hoped that the line from Tzaneen to Pietersburg would be proceeded with. In conclusion, Mr. Mentz hoped that the negotiations between the steamship companies and the Government in regard to the carrying of stud stook would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. (Hear, hear.)

said he made the deficit £475,000.

£469,000.

wished to know when the Minister would make his long promised statement with regard to the reduction of rates.

asked what the Department was going to do with regard to the rates on cement? Since the last alteration people in the Western Provinces in many instances paid much more for the carriage of cement than they did before. The hon. member complained that the rates for the conveyance of wines, spirits, vinegar, etc., from Worcester to Port Elizabeth was very nearly double what they were from Worcester. The same inequality obtained to East London. The low rates from Cape Town to coast towns had been arranged in the hope of getting the traffic away from the ships, but it had not proved successful. In the last six months only three tons of wine, etc., had been conveyed from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth by rail, as against over a thousand tons sent by sea, while from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth and East London only 339 tons were carried by train as compared with over 2,000 tons despatched by sea. Threepence a gallon more was charged for the conveyance of vinegar from Worcester to Port Elizabeth and East London than from Cape Town, this difference being more than the profit the manufacturer obtained. If the line of policy advocated by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), were carried out they would have very few lines to develop the agricultural districts, for in no instance had an agricultural line paid in the first instance.

I don’t ask it to.

Order, please. (Laughter.) Who has the benefit of low rates? The large consuming centres share the benefit with the producer. The hon. member for Pretoria East is always urging the necessity of reducing the cost of living inland. The giving of cheap rates to the large inland centres has contributed more to that than anything else. We want equal rates all round.

Regardless of quantities?

The hon. member may go on again afterwards.

I only asked a question. (Laughter.)

said the list of non-paying lines was rather a long one, the only lines which paid being the main and the mineral railways. The agricultural tines in all the Provinces did not pay.

said the matters mentioned by the last speaker had received his attention. He quite agreed that the carrying of South African produce at a cheap rate was just as much to the advantage of the consumer as to the producer. The people connected with the gold mining industry, he was glad to say, consumed a large quantity of South African produce, and they were benefited very much by these things being carried at a low rate. Something had been said by the hon. member for Worcester with regard to the rate on cement, and the Minister was understood to say that he had given the question some attention, and that things would be bettered in the future. The point which was made by the hon. member for Pretoria East was as to when he (the Minister) would make a statement as to the character of the proposed reductions. He had hoped to do so on the previous day, and he had hoped to do so that day, but the negotiations had been somewhat dilatory, and the Portuguese representatives were awaiting a reply from their Government on the subject, and, of course, it would not be possible for him to make a statement as though everything had been agreed to in the middle of the negotiations. He had begged these representatives to obtain the final reply of their Government as early as possible in order that he could make a statement to the House. He had hoped to have something definite that afternoon, but the reply had not yet been received.

In the meantime the Cape proportion is going down; it has gone down to 10 per cent.

said he would not say that it was going down, but was down. Continuing, the Minister was understood to say in regard to the question which had been put to him by the hon. member for Fordsburg, that they were short of trucks, and until they got more trucks they could not supply the demand that came from many quarters.

The hon. member for Pretoria East had dealt with the question of charging rates in accordance with the profits that were made on the different lines. It was a question that lent itself to much eloquence, but he did not propose to enter into the question at that time. But he would like to say just a few words on the subject. In the first place, he would like to tell the hon. member for Victoria West that if he were to reduce the rates on the lines which were now making a profit to such an extent as to comply with the provisions of the South Africa Act, he would have a deficiency on the whole system.

That you could not do.

If I carried out the proposals of the hon. member for Pretoria East, there would be a deficiency on the railways.

I don’t ask that.

But the hon. member—

That is unreasonable.

The hon. member urged that I must charge rates according to the profits made.

No, that is wrong.

said that if he carried out those proposals they would result in a deficiency on the railways which would have to be met by raising the rates enormously on the branch lines. There was no other alternative.

No margin with 200 per cent. profit?

The hon. gentleman did not tell me to stop at 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. I am dealing with the general arguments which he used. My railway surplus would vanish if I did that. Continuing, he said he would like to add that the line quoted did not make a profit, because coal was carried. It carried goods from Lourenco Marques, and he would like to tell the House that they had to charge the same percentage of depreciation as other lines. That line would not last 30 or 40 years, and this item of depreciation was most material. The Witbank line would probably have a life of only 10 years.

You are paying twice a year for it.

said he did hope that the hon. member for Pretoria East would allow him to say a few words, because he was not in very robust health. The fact was that the life of that line was very short, and they had to spend far more for depreciation on it than in the case of an ordinary light running line. If they put on engines that drew light weights the expenses of that line would go upenormously. They put on heavy engines, and the best of stock on the line, and he thought the hon. member would see that the matter was not so very simple as he thought. He would like to say one word as to the practicability of carrying the proposals of the hon. member for Pretoria East into effect. He would take the line from Cape Town to Caledon, and from Eerste River, which was a sort of a junction, to Sir Lowry Pass. He should say that that paid about ten per cent. The line from Sir Lowry Pass to Caledon did not pay. Now, the hon. member wanted two separate rates for those lines. He would take the line from Kraaifontein to Malmesbury. It paid. From Malmesbury to Piquetburg the line paid, but not so well. The line from Piquetburg to Eendekuil paid still less. The line from Eendekuil to Graafwater paid still less. If he carried out the proposal of the hon. member for Pretoria East, he would have four or five rates operating simultaneously on that line. He thought that such a proposal would not be entertained outside Robben Island. He would like the hon. member for Pretoria East to show him a precedent for such a proposal. There might be such a precedent on some railway systems, but he had never come across it. The effect, if such a proposal were to be carried into effect, would be most damaging to the branch lines not only of the Cape, but of the other Provinces. (Opposition laughter.) It might suit Johannesburg; but it would not suit other places in the country. If they carried out the proposal it would mean putting up the rates on the branch lines. Therefore, the right hon. member for Victoria West need not be afraid that he (the Minister) would carry out the proposal of the hon. member for Pretoria East. With regard to what had been stated by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he would point out that the apparent deficiency was £269,551.

moved that the House now go into committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said he thought that that would be a convenient stage for the Minister to make the statement which he promised the other day with regard to the manner in which maintenance and betterment were to be provided for. As he understood, the depreciation upon rolling stock and upon permanent way was roughly £1,100,000 and betterment £600,000, making in all about £1,700,000, or something in the vicinity of about 2 per cent. on the whole of the capital cost of the railways. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) then pointed out that he did not think that that was a sufficient amount. He then drew attention to an amount of £252,000 on the Supplementary Estimates. The Minister was then under the impression that that amount of money was added to the renewal fund which appeared on the main Estimates. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) took it that that amount on the Supplementary Estimates was simply the expenditure in connection with the replacing of 60 lb. rails by 80 lb. rails. He also asked how much was to be paid out of capital and how much out of betterment. He asked the Minister whether he would state that next session the accounts would be brought forward in such a way that every member of this committee would have an opportunity of being able to see what actually were the charges against betterment and against renewals, and what proportion they bore to the whole of the various items in connection with the railway accounts. In regard to the point that the Minister’s deficiency would not be so much as they had anticipated on that side of the House, they were glad to hear that the revenue was improving, and he had no doubt that a certain amount of this was due to the saving on the fact that the reductions of rates would not came into operation for the whole of the year, but only for a portion, by which a sum of £187.000, on the basis that the reductions would be £750,000, would be saved. He would like to ask the Minister whether that saving of £187,000 was to be devoted to his Department to depreciation or whether it was going into the general revenue?

asked the Minister whether he intended to give effect to the report of the Grievances Commission at an early date?

asked the Minister to repeat in Dutch what he had stated concerning the reduction of the tariff.

replying to Mr. G. J. W. du Toit (Middelburg) said that in the general scheme of reductions of rates, coal rates were being reduced. That scheme, he added, would not come into operation for the next month or six weeks. Continuing, the Minister said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that within the next few years he thought they had not made sufficient provision for depreciation and betterment. Well, he was not going to dispute that. He thought the hon. member for Cape Town rather put his finger on the spot the other day when he said that he (the Minister) had not the money. His money was required to relieve the taxpayers. As to the future, he thought it was essential to make sufficient provision for depreciation and betterment, and if he erred at all it should be on the right side. He had seen the General Manager, and had asked him to prepare a statement, which he hoped to be able to produce in a day or two.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what was the coal rate in the Cape Colony and in the Transvaal?

reminded the Minister that he had not replied to his question in regard to the report of the Grievances Commission.

said that the Commission had sent two reports, which had been laid on the table of the House. When the first report was laid on the table, he informed the House that the Board had carefully gone through the recommendations of the Commission and recommended that effect should be given to a very considerable number of cases. That instruction was given to the General Manager. There was a second class of cases which the Board requested the General Manager to give them further information upon, and to make any remarks he might deem necessary. Then there was a third class of cages which were also dealt with provisionally. Exactly the same thing had been done as in regard to the second class of cases, that as to a certain number of them the Board gave instructions that they should be given effect to immediately. In most cases, if he remembered rightly, certainly as regarded the first, they were questions of increases of pay but the same instructions were given in regard to the second report as in regard to the first.

And on the line we were discussing it is 1d. per ton per mile. So what becomes of the argument of a uniform coal rate with which the hon. member affected to knock me out just now? Of course, there is an enormously greater volume of profit on the Witbank line, and there is double the rate charged, and yet the Minister, backed up by his friends behind him, pretends to set up a case about making development lines, and makes ridiculous propositions to illustrate a perfectly sane suggestion of mine, and absolutely conceals the facts of the case at the bottom of it—ten times the traffic and twice the rates charged.

We are going to reduce it.

On clause 3,

said he noticed that the wording of this section had been considerably altered from what it was in the Act of last year. He moved, after “Parliament” to add “and to no other purpose.”

said that the amendment was not necessary. He had been told that this amendment was likely to be moved, and he could not understand why. He consulted the law adviser, who agreed that there was no need for the amendment. The money was only to be applied to certain purposes, and it could not be applied to anything else.

withdrew his amendment.

On the title of the Bill,

moved the deletion of the word “further”.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with the amended title, which was agreed to by the House.

moved the third reading.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works Appropriation (1912-1913) Bill. He said that this matter was really settled in committee yesterday, and he would not detain the House. He would just like to say that the Estimates had been slightly altered by the figures which had since been supplied. He would read the alterations made. In the first Brown-paper laid on the table there was a deficiency on the Wolseley-Ceres line of £18,400. Since then they had got correct information, which showed that the deficiency was £28,400. As regarded the Standerton-Vrede line, they thought there would be no deficiency, but there was one of £15,000.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the House now go into committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said that he wished to draw the attention of the Minister to the position in which hon. members were placed in regard to these Estimates, and to ask whether he and his department could not devise a better system of bringing these Estimates before Parliament? Hon. members would agree with him that even to the most expert members of the House it was difficult to follow the figures through all the White-books, Brown-books, and other books in connection with these Railway Estimates. He had discussed the matter privately with the Minister, who agreed it was advisable that the information should be put before the House in a simpler and more intelligible form.

said that he welcomed the speech of the member who had just spoken, although it was belated. The committee had been voting away millions of money without knowing what they were doing, because of the absence of explicit accounts. He had endeavoured to impress upon the Minister the absolute necessity of making the information intelligible to hon. members, and the Estimates as now prepared were brought up in a confused and careless way, and now they had the last speaker coming forward and saying that they were voting away money not knowing what they were doing. He (Mr. Nathan) thought that throughout. (Laughter.) The hon. members who laughed did not know what they were doing. (More laughter.) The fact of the matter was that this state of affairs was due to the fact that these Estimates were brought up for consideration at the last moment, and then in a very incomplete form. (Cheers.) Hon. members knew the Minister had not been well, and it was solely on that ground that they had allowed him off rather lightly. He hoped that the Minister would appreciate that fact, and see that next session these Estimates were brought forward in such a manner as to make them easy, and intelligible to hon. members. He hoped that next year the figures would be brought forward in such a way that even the meanest intelligence might be able to understand them. If that were not done, he promised the Minister a very bad time—in fact if he (the hon. member) could not understand them, he would take up the time of the House sufficiently long until he did. (Laughter.)

said he did not share the objection of the last member, but what he objected to was the late hour when this was put forward. It would have been much better to have taken these items under the various headings, as they had done on the Main Estimates.

said he could not understand why the Minister first asked for £13,939,3745, and then for and then for additional 25,010,000.

On clause 3,

said that in clause 3 the proviso was got from another Appropriation Bill, and it was copied rather unintelligibly. It showed that this Bill had been copied without great care, an he therefore moved after “Parliament” to omit all the words to the end of the clause.

replying to Mr. Du Toit, said he had to act in accordance with the usual procedure.

said that all the details set forth, for instance, £450,000 for rolling-stock, should be sufficient; but, if they voted this money under that heading, the Minister ought not to use it for anything else. If they voted money for rolling-stock, he should not be allowed to use it for harbours.

said he quite agreed with what had been said, and if they worked upon these open lines, the Minister could take it from one thing and put it to another without any trouble. It was quite true that the Minister might say that he could not spend the money upon rolling-stock, but he would, like to spend it on something else. That was what he could do now. The Minister should not be given this power, and the House should have some control over the expenditure on railways. (Hear, hear.) As it was, the Minister was practically given a free hand.

said he did not see the necessity of the Minister’s hands being tied down in regard to small sums, but all the elasticity that was needed was in the details, and there was no necessity for asking for more elasticity.

said he was going to support the Minister. (Laughter.) They could not treat the Railway Department like an ordinary Government department. If the Minister had a rush of traffic he had to devise means by which to meet it. They could not run the railways if they tied the Minister up.

said that although he was no financial genius it appeared to him that any attempt to compare railway expenditure with ordinary expenditure was going upon wrong lines. The railway expenditure was remunerative, while other Government expenditure was non-productive. He could not see why the Minister’s hands should be tied.

asked what was the difference whether the vote was for reproductive or non reproductive purposes. If they went on those lines, why did they have details of the railway expenditure at all? No one thought that the Minister was going to spend the money lightly, but it was a question of Parliamentary control.

said that the case of a rush of traffic necessitating unauthorised expenditure was entirely covered by the Audit Act.

Bridges may break.

That is already provided for. It is simply a matter of Parliamentary control or no Parliamentary control—that is the plain issue. However, if I am not to be supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) and the financiers he represents, I know it will be hopeless to press the matter to an issue.

said the point was that the Minister should not take, say, £450,000 for rolling stock, and curtail the expenditure under that head and devote the money not used to constructing new lines. (Hear, hear.) Money spent for purposes not covered by Parliamentary votes should be covered in an Unauthorised Expenditure Bill.

That is what I do.

You never put the warrants on the table of the House.

Oh, yes, I did.

I took considerable trouble to go through the warrants, and found that they totalled £21,000 odd, but the whole amount came to £900,000. Two millions were voted for new lines, and two millions for other lines under construction. However, the Minister used £900,000 for another purpose, and the warrants for this were not on the table within a month ago.

I did not know of this expenditure of which we have heard so much until Parliament met, but for whatever excess expenditure I incurred and knew of warrants were laid on the table. As soon as I got to know of this excess expenditure I gave instructions for a Bill to be drawn.

The Minister has had sufficient melancholy experience to prevent him doing it again.

The amendment of Mr. Fremantle was negatived.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

said that when the matter of the Bloemfontein farms was being discussed, the hon. member for Weenen made a statement with reference to Mr. Steyn. He had received a telegram from the Law Society, reading as follows: “Mr. Steyn, President of our society, to-day submitted to a special meeting of this Council, called at his request, the reported statement of Mr. Meyler in House, gravely reflecting on his integrity with regard to purchase of farm for agricultural school on behalf of Government, and requested Council to investigate his action, which is being done. Mr. Steyn declares statement untrue, and courts fullest inquiry; will you ascertain if statement being persisted in? My Council give you full discretion as to the use of this wire.”

said that he himself had received a telegram from Mr. Steyn, which read: “Reported in paper you said in House, I had not only received commission one per cent. from Government, but it was common talk in the lobbies that I had also a commission from the other side. I deny case charge, and demand withdrawal, or challenge you to repeat outside House.” Continuing, he said that it seemed to be the fashion to challenge people to repeat statements outside the House. He said that when the matter first came up the Minister of Lands was urged to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole matter. It was pointed out that if a committee went into the matter it would save any chance or danger of mistrust in connection with the matter. The Minister refused that committee and, therefore, the only place they could bring these matters forward was in that House He repeated an insinuation which he had heard outside, and asked the Minister to go into the matter. The Minister had not gone into the matter, Mr. Steyn had taken up his own case, and denied that anything of the sort had happened. He knew nothing whatever about Mr. Steyn, but was assured that he was an honourable man, and he was prepared to accept his denial. He had nothing else to withdraw; he had simply repeated what he had heard outside. There were some other matters to which he wished to draw the attention of the House.

That is not the question.

I have dealt with the question of Mr. Steyn. I have nothing to withdraw, and I am now going to deal with another phase of the question. In the Loan Bill before them, he continued, they were asked to vote the money for the purchase of the farms. He found that in October, 1909, the various heirs in the Estate Pretorius entered into a deed of partition, Cyprus being received by one of the heirs and valued at £1,984 10s., and Klipfontein being awarded to the other heirs and valued at £1,984 10s. The owners of Klipfontein again entered into a deed of partition, and that portion now known as Klipfontein was in extent only 661 morgen, and had been valued in the deed of partition at £1,323. The owners of Cyprus and Klipfontein held only the nude property, the usufruct being in favour of the survivor of the Estate Pretorius. From the records in the Master’s Office it would seem that the usufruct on the farm Klipfontein (which was at the time of this valuation still in extent 1,323 morgen), Middlepunt and Cyprus were valued for estate purposes at £819 15s. In the subsequent partition of Klipfontein the survivor still retained the usufruct over Klipfontein, but the farm Klipfontein as registered was only in extent half of what it was at the time the valuation was made. The point which he made from these records was that the farms were valued at £2 per morgen a few years ago.

asked the Minister of Finance to make a statement with regard to loans. They voted a great deal last year, and now they were asked to vote a further sum. How did the fund stand now?

said that he had not the details. Continuing, he said he was sorry that the hon. member for Weenen had not seen fit to retract the statement made in the House. If such had been done it would have been better for his own dignity and the dignity of that House. He stated that it was reported in the lobbies that Mr. Steyn had £2,000 from the other side. Well, the hon. member knew that he who libelled was a libeller and, therefore, had assumed responsibility for a statement which he ought not try to get away from. He thought that, having made the statement, it was the right thing for the hon. member for Weenen to withdraw that statement. He did not think the House should be used as a place for casting aspersions about people who were outside the House, and could not defend themselves.

said he thought that the House had been left a long time without the statement which was asked for by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He pointed out that they had not the same facilities as the Minister for making the calculations. They had not had a debt statement since Union, the only one being a public statement by the then Treasurer.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the House now go into committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said that under head “E” a large sum was put down for the purchase of land. They had £160,000 for the purchase, laying out and improvement of land for settlement purposes, and £100,000 for land for irrigation schemes. He thought before that money was spent these schemes should be laid before Parliament. Here they had a sum of £260,000 which the Minister was authorised to spend—and he did not say he would not make good use of it—but no statement was brought this House as to the expenditure of that money. They gave the Minister last year power to spend £120,000 for similar purposes. The only information they had had with regard to that expenditure had been in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Von Brandis, who had elicited that something like £80,000 had been spent, but they had had no details as to where the land had been purchased and how much it had cost. He put it to the Minister of Finance that it was important that they should have details in regard to this matter.

said that in regard to the matter which had been mentioned he wanted to take the opportunity of repeating that he was perfectly willing to accept Mr. Steyn’s statement.

moved, on page 4, under vote D, after “Fencing Loans,” to insert “Act 6 of 1907 and Act 20 of 1910.”

Agreed to.

said that there were some objectionable words in this clause. The clause said: “With the approval of the Minister of Finance a saving on any sub-head of a vote may be made available to meet cess expenditure on any other sub-head. He did not object to that, but then the clause went on to say, “or expenditure on a new sub-head of the same vote. That, he thought, was very objectionable, because it gave the Government power to spend money on some work that had never been before Parliament at all.

said he would like to call the attention of the hon. member to the proviso, which read as follows: “Provided that no excess shall be incurred on the sums appearing in column 2 of the Schedule hereto nor shall savings thereon be available for any purpose other than that for which the money is hereby granted as indicated in the said Schedule.

Why put in those words at all, seeing that they are very objectionable? It is an objectionable clause that ought not to be in any Act of Parliament. He moved, in lines 24 and 25, to omit “or expenditure on a new subhead of the same vote.”

said that they discussed this question a couple of days ago on another Act, and there was a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee to strike out this phrase, but that was found to go a little beyond the ideas of the Public Accounts Committee themselves on the subject, and they then limited it so that money which had been voted for any public work should not be spent on any other public work, If his hon. friend looked at the proviso to clause 3 he would see that they were tied up, and he (the Minister) did not see what possible evil results could follow.

said that this portion of the clause was not so dangerous as it might look at first sight. He had checked off the items, and the only things that were left open were a few items under head “C,” telegraph and telephone works, which were of quite a minor character.

said that they were giving power to spend these amounts on any new small work that the Government might find. He objected to these words appearing in any Act of Parliament, and he moved that they be deleted.

urged the hon. member not to press the amendment, seeing that the only things left open were small items.

The amendment was negatived.

The Bill was reported with an amendment in the schedule, which was agreed to.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said he-would like to know what procedure was to be adopted with regard to amendments to the Bill.

said they would deal first of all with the amendments made in committee and any consequential amendments would be dealt with upon those amendments made in committee, and, after those had been disposed of, he would ask for any further amendments.

On new clause 7, Qualifying examination for higher posts,

moved in line 26, to omit “to any post or grade above that of a” and to substitute “ from a grade of” : in line 28, to omit “a higher post” and to substitute “a post in a grade higher than that of clerical assistant”; and in line 37, to omit any post above that of a,” and to substitute “ a grade higher than that of.

seconded.

moved, as an amendment to this amendment, to omit “from a grade of” and to substitute “above the first grade of”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amended amendment was agreed to. On new clause 8, Higher posts, how filled,

moved in line 46 to omit all the words from “and who” to “section” in line 49; and in line 54 after “to” to insert “the qualifications required under this Act for any particular post, and to”.

seconded.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved to omit sub-section (2). His reason for doing so, he said, was owing to the House in committee having decided to make both languages compulsory either at the entrance or qualifying examination, or within a period of five years, when Civil Servants qualified for a higher grade in the service, to pass a compulsory bilingual examination, it was no longer necessary nor fair to make them pass a further test by the Civil Service Board as to their language qualifications. Having carried the principle of compulsion by reason of the majority the least that could in justice be done, after having insisted upon a bilingual qualification, was to concede that Civil Servants should not be subjected to a further bilingual test by the Civil Service Board. When they compelled a Civil Servant to pass whatever character of examination the Board might decide upon for further promotion, he would always have over him the fear that the Board would decide that his qualifications were not sufficient.

His lion, friend knew that written and grammatical high Dutch was not the language generally spoken throughout the country. He (Sir Thomas Smartt) had been informed that it was very difficult to acquire the grammatical high Dutch, and many of the Dutch boys in this country did not take the qualification, though they had the fullest knowledge of the language as it was used throughout the country. Owing to the difficulties of high Dutch many of the Dutch people in the country and their children were not as equipped in that language as they were in the English language, though they spoke Dutch thoroughly enough for the daily requirements of South Africa. It would be necessary under that clause to qualify in high Dutch, and he thought that Civil Servants should be absolved from the necessity of having to submit themselves to a further test by the Civil Service Board. He hoped the Minister of the Interior would grant what was a fair and reasonable concession.

seconded the amendment.

said he did not think the amendment was fair, it was the clause moved by the hon. member the previous day.

The hon. Minister has no right to say that—it is misleading the House.

The last part is actually taken from—

Will my hon. friend read the first part?

said he was speaking of the second part.

The hon. Minister is misleading the House.

I am not misleading the House in any way.

Read the whole clause.

read the clause, and said that what his hon. friend had done was to take the words out of his proposed clause—

again charged the hon. Minister with trying to mislead the House.

replied with some heat that his hon. friend knew he was not trying to mislead the House. “There should be some standard of honour in these matters,” he added. (Ministerial cheers.) His hon. friend had asked why they took the second sub-section when they had introduced the principle of compulsion into the first sub-section. There were a great number of men in the Civil Service whom it would be a great mistake to move to portions of the Union where they did not possess the necessary language acquirements. The first sub-section dealt with future entrants, and the second subsection generally deals with the people who are already in the service, and who might have to be transferred to other parts of the Union. What the Board would see to was that it did not move to a post any member of the Civil Service who did not possess the necessary qualifications for that post.

said he had said nothing on this clause when it was last discussed, but he was going to say something now, because it affected not only future Civil Servants, but Civil Servants who were already in the Union. He had certainly understood that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Convention to compel Civil Servants at present in the Union to learn both languages. To his thinking, this was certainly a breach of the Act of Union, because if that Act did not intend to safeguard the rights of those persons already in the Civil Service, then it was waste paper. If they said to a Civil Servant, “You shall be protected, but you shall not get promotion unless you have a knowledge of Dutch,” then he considered that a breach of the Convention. Certainly it was the idea that persons in the Civil Service should not be prejudiced by the want of a knowledge of Dutch, but in this sub-section they were worse off than the future entrants, because they had not the five years in which to prepare themselves; they did not give persons already in the Civil Service the same opportunity as they gave to the future Civil Servants. That, according to his idea, was a breach of the Convention according as he and a great many others understood it.

said he entirely agreed with the idea that they should discuss this matter calmly and dispassionately, but it was difficult to keep one’s feelings under control in face of the arguments they had heard from the other side, because they were absolutely devoid of foundation, and it was simply raising a feeling which would create suspicion and which would disturb Civil Servants. His hon. and learned friend (Sir H. Juta) based his whole objection to this paragraph upon the grounds that the safeguards provided by the Act of Union would not be preserved. This had nothing to do with the Act of Union. Let the hon. member read clause 45, and he would see there stated that the services of officers in the Union shall not be dispensed with by their lack of knowledge in either of the languages. The safeguards provided that none of the Civil Servants should run the risk of having their services dispensed with by reason of not having bilingual knowledge. But that did not affect the question of transfer. What would his hon. and learned friend say if the Government allowed an officer to be transferred to a post where the knowledge of a language was necessary, and he did not possess that knowledge. Their Civil Service was a very excellent service, and a service of which they might be proud, but it was a Civil Service of the public of this country, and the public had a right to be served. Now his hon. friend said that they were only giving the Commission power to promote a man for certain posts if he were a bilinguist. Bilinguists, hitherto, had been penalised, because where a Civil Servant had happened to qualify in both languages, he was liable to be moved away from his quarters and from influential stations because he had a knowledge of Dutch. Because a Civil Servant at present in the Union did not happen to know Dutch that would not imperil his promotion, but it was the duty of the Commission to see that men who had a knowledge of the particular language necessary for certain posts, should be appointed to them. After all, what they had to consider was the interests of the public and the interests of the taxpayers of the country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)

said he could not allow the statements of the two Ministers who had last spoken to go unchallenged. He would give him an illustration of how the argument cut both ways. While in Johannesburg a lady in his presence went up to a policeman and asked him a certain address. The officer replied, in Dutch, “Excuse me, I cannot understand you.” The man was perfectly right to use his own language. He said he had only recently been appointed to the post, and if the lady would wait a little while he would make inquiries, and would give her the necessary assistance. Another case, that he heard of indirectly, was the case of a stationmaster at Kenilworth. This man was an Englishman, brought out here at the time of the war. He had been a stationmaster in what might be called a purely English-speaking neighbourhood for years. He was asked if he knew Dutch, and he replied that he did not. He said he had made several attempts to learn it, but was unable to master it thoroughly. He had been informed that he was to be transferred to Matjesfontein, where Dutch was used to a very great extent. He had told the administration that he had tried to acquire some knowledge of Dutch, but so far he had failed.

said it would have been the duty of those making appointments, even if the matter had not been mentioned in the Act, to send as far as possible to places where they had Dutch-speaking people, someone who could talk to them in their own language. Where that was not possible a proper interpreter should be provided at the cost of the State, but a Kafir interpreter should not be engaged for white men. All the members of the Opposition recognised that in Dutch districts they should put men who could speak that tongue. The Minister of Native Affairs had practically admitted that the clause was unnecessary. It was just as unnecessary as it was to state that they must not put a deaf man on the Bench. Every sensible man recognised that there were certain disqualifications for employment in the service, but when they put a clause like that in the Act it was only “rubbing it in” to repeat it in a second clause. He thought it was most unfortunate and was calculated to do the very harm to which the Minister referred just now when he (Dr. Watkins) had the misfortune to interrupt him. What the Minister of the Interior said was misleading, although it might not have been intentionally so. The old clause provided ample safeguards for Dutch-speaking people who desired to have officials to whom they could speak in their own language. The repetition of the matter in another clause would cause the very friction it was desired to avoid. There were people, however, who did not desire a right and just settlement of the language question. He knew people who spoke English as well as he did, but they had asked English officials questions in Dutch, and because they were not answered in that language they complained that they had a grievance. The clause would enable those people who were bitter over this matter to cause friction. That was not what the liberal minded among his Dutch friends desired, but that fair play should be given to the man who did not speak both languages, and therefore they addressed Civil Servants in the language the latter understood.

The country had distinctly been misled on this question. If this second section meant nothing why not withdraw it? If it meant anything, the Civil Service and the country had been misled. They had been told that there would be no alteration in the case of existing Civil Servants. But if it made no alteration, why put it in?

That is the amendment of your leader.

It is not. The amendment of my leader is an honest attempt to meet a difficulty which will remove it out of an irritating sphere and put it into the hands of a Commission, and leave them as sensible men to make the appointments. When you take it away from its context and use it as a second string, then it becomes a most objectionable clause, although in the first instance it was an entirely worthy one. (Opposition cheers.) I am known as one of the moderate men. (Ministerial laughter.) Hon. members may laugh and jeer. I may not be known to the young member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Mentz), but I have been here longer than he has, and there are many to whom 1 am better known. Proceeding, Dr. Watkins said that by forcing this matter through the Government was making, mischief, and that was what most of them on the Opposition side were exceedingly anxious to avoid.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had tried to make the House believe that there was no compulsion about his amendment. If the hon. member would read the clause again he would find that there was compulsion. It was the only way of carrying the thing into effect. He supposed they would hear in the course of the next few days that it was meant to be permissive. Quite a different construction was sought to be placed on the position of the Civil Servant under the Act of Union. He quite understood and agreed with the construction that was placed on the clause by the Hon. the Minister for Native Affairs.

All their rights? Promotion?

Then why did not the members of the Convention place these words in, the Act of Union? They were told that it should not be made compulsory for the reason that it was so hard for the Englishman to learn high Dutch. What about the Dutchman who had to learn high English? He submitted that the meaning of the clause was perfectly understood, and that the meaning which they attributed to, it was the meaning which was understood by all the Civil Servants of the country.

said he would like to utter a swan song, so far as Natal was concerned, on this question, because he supposed that the clause was going to be pushed through that day as they saw it pushed through on the previous evening. He submitted that this new principle would affect the people of Natal far more severely than it would affect the people of any other part of the country. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the Closer Union campaign, in which he took a prominent part. He attended most of the meetings that were held in connection with the matter in Natal. At some of these meetings, the hon. member for Dundee, who came fresh from the Convention, spoke. Questions were put with regard to the language question, and he would say that never was there any suggestion that there was going to be any compulsion about this matter. Even the hon. member for Dundee did not say a word about compulsion. They had great difficulty in getting the people of Natal to accept the Act of Union, and when the tide turned in their favour the people voted in favour, he submitted, because they were satisfied that there was going to be no compulsion in Natal or anywhere else. And the hon. member for Dundee, with whom he (the speaker) was in close touch at the time, was fully satisfied with all that was done. It was noticeable in the course of the debate that took place on the previous afternoon and evening, that with the exception of the Prime Minister, the only persons who spoke were of one race. They had no doubt as to the views of the people of the other race. They had their ideals, and he respected the ideals which they stood by.

He would just like to quote to the House the remark he heard made in the lobby by a member of the other race. It was to this effect, “Let us go into the House and see the Englishmen shooting each other. (Ministerial dissent) No, he was not going to deal with racial matters, but he thought that that was a very significant remark. They of Natal objected to any sort of compulsion. They were represented by a member in the Cabinet who—

The hon. member must confine himself to the question. (Ministerial cheers.)

was proceeding, amid cries of “Withdraw,” when

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

I was simply going to say—(Cries of “Order and “Withdraw.”)

The hon. member must confine himself—(Cries of “Order and “Withdraw.”)

said he was going to say that it was very unfortunate that certain members from Natal had not seen fit to make a statement in connection with this question. He expected the hon. members for Vryheid and Newcastle, whose views they knew, to follow the course which they had done. He was sure that if a referendum were taken in Natal now, and the position explained in regard to this clause, that instead of 80 per cent. voting in favour there would be 90 per cent. against. It was against the principles of the people of Natal, and when they commenced whittling down the principles of the Act of Union they did not know where it was going to stop. He submitted that those hon. gentlemen on the front benches on the other side would not get a hearing in Natal if they attempted to make the speeches which they had made on the previous day. The hon. member for Victoria West, for instance—

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the subject of the discussion.

said he was sure that if the matter were put to the people of Natal they would throw it out as surely as they had thrown out the Education Ordinance.

said he thought it was most unfair of the hon. member who had just sat down to make such a statement as he had concerning a Dutch member, whom he alleged had said to a colleague that they should go into the House and see the Englishmen shooting themselves. He absolutely repudiated that statement. (Ministerial cheers.) He did not believe for a moment that any Dutch member would say anything of the sort. (Ministerial cheers.) Referring to what the hon. member had said concerning the referendum, he agreed, but the Act would not be rejected on the ground of the language clause.

said he could not allow the hon. member to continue that subject.

said he did object to these insinuations that there had been a breach of faith on one side or the other with regard to the Act of Union. The Act of Union was clear. The Minister of Native Affairs had read the clause as it was understood by all reasonable men. He was sure that that was the meaning which was attached to it by the members of the Civil Service themselves.

said that by this time he thought every member of the House would have seen the unwisdom of raising this question as it had been raised. A much better way might have been found, and one that would not have caused so much regret. Last night he endeavoured three times to extract, as a matter of right, as a matter of courtesy, and as a matter of decency, from the Government a reply, and he failed. He asked a simple question. In his opinion, the Minister had been most misleading in quoting, as he did, a portion of his hon. friend’s amendment, stripping it of its context and putting it in connection with the compulsory clause, but the explanation given by the Minister itself made good in the powers of the Government what the other clause failed to give them, i.e., it gave them the power to impose bilingualism on the present members of the service. It clearly did so. Those who had illusions about this matter before could dispel them now. There was another point which had not been cleared up yet. When a man passed an examination and acquired his title to be considered bilingual, what use was it to him? Under the clause to which exception had been taken by his hon. friend, that man had got to satisfy now, as well as having passed his examination, he had got to satisfy the Board—no examination prescribed, no standard laid down, no encouragement to stay in the service. He went there and he had to pass compulsory bilingualism. What security had he? None. There was absolutely nothing to protect that man for the future. Superimposed upon examination they had now got inquisition, and that in the public service. (Hear, hear.)

then put the question that sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, remain part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes.” had it.

The amendment was therefore negatived.

On clause 15, Discharge of persons in the public service,

said that taking this clause as amended in committee in conjunction with clause 34, they had provided that a public servant who was discharged as unfit for the discharge of his duties from causes within their own control, should receive twice his contributions from the Pension Fund. He did not think that such a thing was intended by the committee.

said the position could be met by deleting the words “from causes within his own control,” which had been added to the clause in committee.

urged that the words, which he had moved in at committee stage, should be retained as part of the clause.

On clause 27,

moved to omit all the words after “51,” in line 40, to “15,” in line 45.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said it seemed to him that they were going to give a return of twice the contributions to a man who was dismissed under this section.

said that their original proposal was that as regarded a public officer who was discharged on the ground of inefficiency they should return to him his single contributions without interest. Then his hon. friend the member for Maritzburg moved as an amendment that such a man should receive his full pension. That seemed to him (the Minister) to be dangerous, too because it might lead to a certain line of conduct on the part of men who might want to leave the service and receive their pensions.

On clause 59, Contributions to pensions by officers who were formerly in service under Orange River Colony Government,

said he wished to move that this clause be omitted. He thought it was passed by the Select Committee without making full inquiry into all the circumstances. The hon. member had not concluded, when

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that the clause came upon the House as a surprise; the Bill, as first published, did not contain the clause. He did not question the right of the House to pass a law insisting upon a contribution being made by members of the Free State service. The Bill should do what it purported to do, namely, create equality throughout the Provinces as near as possible. Free State Civil Servants were asked to contribute 4 per cent. In Natal a contribution of 3 per cent. had to be made by those who were Civil Servants at the time of Union. In the event of the death of the Civil Servant, provision was made for the widow to receive a gratuity or a rotund of the contributions made by her husband. In the Cape Colony a different process applied; a contribution of 3 per cent. was levied, and 1 per cent. went towards the widows fund. In that case, also, provision was made for the widow in the case of the Civil Servant’s death. The Free State law made no such provision whatever. Except in the case of an accident that happened to the Civil Servant, there was no contribution made to the Civil Servant’s widow or dependants. He did not know whether his hon. friend was aware of that when the law was passed. It was not fair to make the Free State Civil Servants now suddenly contribute 4 per cent., which was higher than any other Province, towards this pension, without any provision being made for their widows. They would get petitions over and over again on behalf of widows of Civil Servants, asking the House to refund a portion, at all events, of their husbands contributions if death had taken place before reaching the pensionable age. There was another point which he would like to mention in regard to those Civil Servants of the Free State who were appointed under Imperial Government. Some of them actually held written contracts which exempted them from payment of contributions towards any fund whatever. He hoped his hon. friend would agree to the deletion of the clause; it would only mean the loss of one year’s contribution, and next year the hon. Minister could introduce an amendment to the Bill, meeting the difficulties he (Mr. Botha) had stated, and at the same time getting the clause put in. The majority of his colleagues of the Free State had no idea of the enormous effect the clause would have upon a lot of Civil Servants, because they took it for granted, as did many others, because it had been referred to a Select Committee, most of them were inclined to take a Bill from a Select Committee on trust. It was not quite fair, he thought, to spring the clause not only upon the House, but also upon the public and the people who were concerned. For a number of years these men had carried on without contributing to the fund; surely they could carry on another year; it would not affect the revenue to the Treasury to any appreciable extent. He asked the Hon. the Minister to agree to the deletion of the clause, not to satisfy the clamour of his constituents. The Minister was entitled to ask for a contribution from these Civil Servants, but he ought to consider all the circumstances, and make provision for the difficulties that he (the speaker) had referred to.

said he was glad the hon. member had moved to do what he (the speaker had moved in the committee stage. He could not understand why ’the Minister would not agree that it was a contravention of the Act of Union. He wanted to ask the Hon. the Minister if it were a fact that the law officers of the Crown were asked to advise as to whether or not it was a contravention of the Act of Union to compel the Free State men to contribute, and whether the law officers of the Crown advised that it would not be such a contravention. He had been informed that the Minister had taken advice from the law officers of the Crown, and that they had advised the Government they could not interfere with the rights of the Free State men. The first Civil Service Bill did not interfere with those rights. Was it not because of an opinion in existence from the law officers that the clause was not in the original Bill as introduced by the Minister? When the question was last before the committee the Minister said that on the score of uniformity and equity the arguments in favour of the new clause were unanswerable.

He had some facts to put before the House to show that there was no uniformity and no equity in this proposal. There was a large number of men at present in the Civil Service that would not be compelled to contribute to the Union pensions scheme. In other words, there was a large number of men who had not contributed in the past, and were not going to contribute in the future. He took the case of the Transvaal. There were certain officials who were exempt under the Ordinance of 1906, and they were not going to be compelled to contribute to the Union pensions scheme, but they were going to get their pensions. And where was the uniformity in that? He next took the case of Natal. Men who entered the service before the Natal Pensions scheme was introduced, and who were now servants of the Union, were not going to be compelled to contribute. And in the case of the Gape men, who entered the service before 1885, before the Cape pensions scheme was introduced, were not to be compelled to contribute to this pensions scheme. That showed that there was quite a number of officials who would not have to contribute, and the argument in favour of uniformity fell away completely. He would also like to point out to the Minister that the Ordinance of 1904 distinctly laid down that the pensions of the Free State officials should be paid for out of revenue, and the result was that when the grading took place in 1908 the men got much smaller salaries, because the Pensions Ordinance had been in existence for four years. Now the Free State officials were to contribute to the Union pension fund they should fie put on the same basis as officials in other parts of the Union as regards salaries, because their salaries were reduced because they would receive pensions without making contributions. If they did that, then they could compel them to contribute to the pensions scheme, but it would be most inequitable to say to these men, “You are now going to be compelled to contribute, but your salaries are to remain as they were before Union.” As far as the Free State was concerned, the Civil Servants had not contributed in the past. Under the Republican Government they were not compelled to. He would like to compare the salaries paid in the Transvaal and the Free State. The Chief Clerk of the Department of Agriculture in the Transvaal received £620 per annum, and the Chief Clerk in the Department of Agriculture in the Free State received £320. The Chief Clerk in the Colonial Secretary’s Office in the Transvaal received £800, and the Chief Clerk in the Colonial Secretary’s Office in the Free State received £500. The Chief Clerk in the Colonial Treasurer’s Department received £900, as compared with £545 paid in the Free State. The Chief Clerk in the Public Works Department in the Transvaal received £680, as against £420 paid in the Free State. Hon. members, on comparing the salaries paid in these two colonies, would see that the Transvaal men were very much better treated than the Free State men, and probably one of the reasons for that was that the one set of men contributed to a pension fund, and the other did not. If they were going to say that the Free State men must contribute to the Union pensions scheme, then they should put them on the same basis as the officials of the Transvaal, the Cape, and Natal, as regards salary. He submitted that this proposal was against law, against uniformity, and against equity, and the Minister ought to allow it to go out. If the Minister had information from the law advisers of the Crown that this proposal was a contravention of the Act of Union, then it should never have been introduced. Of course, his information might be incorrect, but the men had told him that the law advisers of the Crown had advised’ that the proposal was contrary to the Act of Union, and he hoped that the Minister would allow the clause to be deleted.

said that if he had had information in his possession that the law advisers of the Crown had advised that this would be a breach of the South Africa Act, did the hon. member for one moment think that he would have the audacity to bring forward such a proposal? Did he think that any Minister of the Crown would be guilty of such a breach of faith and come forward and make this proposal, knowing that he had in his possession the advice of the law advisers of the Government that it was a breach of the South Africa Act? He had never heard of such information. As he explained when they were in committee, they would be doing a grave injustice if they did not put the Free State officials on the same basis as the other officials. The Government had tried to meet the Free State men in regard to salary. They were doing their best under the reorganisation scheme to level them up, and to do the fair and just thing to them.

said that in the Transvaal a certain number of officials were brought into the Service from other Services where they had pensionable rights, and they were brought in on the understanding that they would enjoy the same rights as they had had before. In order to carry out that understanding an Ordinance was passed in 1906, which provided that they should enjoy the same pensionable rights as they enjoyed in the services from which they came. The result was that men who came from the Imperial service with pensionable rights, but without any obligation to contribute, had to go on receiving pensions without making any contributions. Consequently, there was a certain number of men in the Transvaal Service whose rights were laid down under the Ordinance of 1906, and who would enjoy pensions without any obligation to contribute. If there were men in the Free State Service who came on the same understanding, namely, that they would enjoy the same pensionable rights as they enjoyed in the Services from which they came, they ought to be protected. Of course, Crown Colony Government in the Orange River Colony took a different course from that of the Transvaal. It passed an Ordinance giving every Civil Servant pensionable rights without any obligation to contribute.

I would just like to explain—

No, no. The Hon. the Minister has already spoken.

On clause 55,

moved in line 24, after “administration,” to insert “and” and after “or” to insert “the”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 1,

moved to insert after the words “Governor-General,” in line 13, the words “the Attorneys-General appointed under section 139 of the South Africa Act, 1909.” In the South Africa Act, section 139 indicated that the Minister of Justice was to have entrusted to him all the powers that were vested in the former Attorneys-General of the various Provinces, save and except the prosecutions for crimes and offences which would be vested in offices under the style and title of Attorneys-General of the Provinces. Therefore, although the Minister of Justice had vested in him certain powers there was taken away from him all the powers relating to prosecution for crimes and offences. So that it was evident that the officers entrusted with these prosecutions of crimes and offences should stand apart from the Minister of Justice. These officials were in some respects superior to the Minister of Justice, because they were the only persons who had these powers conferred upon them, therefore, in this respect, they were independent of him Under the Public Service Act, however; the effect would be that they would become public servants and they would be under the same Ministerial head, they would therefore if all under the control of the Minister of Justice. Now, here would occur a curious anomaly. Here they had a public servant under this Bill entirely independent under the South Africa Act. He could not conceive how this would work. How they were going to have a subordinate to the Minister, who had powers vested in him over which the Minister had no control, The proper course to adopt would be to cane the Attorneys-General away from the public service and put them in a class apart. Under the Public Service Bill they were amenable to all kinds of rules and regulations, and if the Minister chose to exercise his authority, it would lead to a most extraordinary state of affairs. The Attorney-General had the sole power of prosecution, and it was intended that he should be perfectly independent in his prosecution, and that no political Minister should have anything to say to him with regard to these prosecutions. Supposing that he prosecuted contrary to the desires of his political chief, that chief might give orders to his subordinates, and the Attorney-General might say, “I won’t obey them, you have no right to do this.” The Minister might retaliate and say, “I have the right, over your other duties.” There-fore they would have an Imperial imperio. What they had to do was to keep the Attorneys-General clear of all political influence. Would it not be better to carry into effect the principle which was laid down by the South Africa Act with regard to maxing these officials perfectly independent as far as prosecutions went and keep them quite apart under a separate Act. He quite understood that there were difficulties if this were done, in the way of controlling these officials and getting at them if they did not do their duties properly, but these did not seem unsurmountable difficulties. The Attorneys-General ought to have better security than the possibility of being dismissed at the whim of their political chief.

who seconded the amendment, hoped that the Minister would accept the amendment moved by his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. Juta). When they brought this matter before the Select Committee they tried to convince the Minister upon that occasion. The Minister would acknowledge that the clear idea of the South Africa Act was that these Attorneys-General should be perfectly independent as far as prosecutions were concerned. That principle was laid down deliberately by the National Convention. The amendment moved by his hon. friend secured that position, and the only argument he could find against it was that the Attorneys-General had to perform other duties besides those connected with prosecutions, but was that sufficient to overrule what was the deliberate intention of the South Africa Act?

said he preferred his own amendment which appeared on the notice paper. He did that because his own amendment seemed the more workable. That amendment was to the effect that these Attorneys-General would practically be excluded from the Civil Service, and that they would in fact be put on something like the same footing as the Administrators. His hon. and learned friend said let them pass a separate Act for these Attorneys-General, but he did not think that would be necessary. With regard to the status of the Administrators, that was taken from the British North America Act in dealing with the Lieutenant-Governors there.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 2, Public Service Commission: appointment, powers, and duties of,

moved the omission from sub-section (b) of the words “or to any professional office of senior rank.” These words were omitted by the Select Committee on the Bill, but they had been retained through an inadvertence.

seconded.

said that if the amendment were carried every senior professional officer could only be appointed after a recommendation had been made by the Public Service Commission. It would mean that no Attorney-General could be appointed without a recommendation of the Commission. What had the Commission to do with persons like an Attorney-General, or Surveyor-General, or Government Mining Engineer, or Director of Irrigation, or Commissioner of Police, all officials occupying higher positions and drawing higher salaries than the Public Service Commissioners themselves? It would be a mistake to accept the amendment.

said it was extraordinary that the Minister had accepted every other amendment made by the Select Committee and had refused this one. The omission of these words was carried by a majority in a Select Committee.

It was carried by inadvertence. (Laughter.)

said he wanted Mt. Speaker’s ruling on a very important matter. In the report of the Select Committee on the Bill it was stated that the amendment of Mr. Duncan was carried by five to four. He (Sir Thomas) understood that the Bill was reintroduced with the deletions and amendments of the Select Committee, and if the House had to vote on the question it would be necessary for the Minister to move that the clause be deleted instead of the hon. member for Fordsburg moving that the clause be inserted.

said the House had nothing to do with what took place in the Select Committee. All that the House was dealing with now was what had been reported from the Committee of the “Whole House and that committee had reported the Bill in this form. The Chairman had brought up the Bill in this form, and he (Mr. Speaker) could not go back on what had taken place in the Select Committee.

said he understood that they had taken a resolution of that House, moved by the hon. Minister opposite, in connection with a great many Bills, that a certain order be discharged for the purpose of bringing up a Bill as amended by a Select Committee. He (Sir Thomas) maintained that this was a clerical error in the Bill, and that therefore the words should not be kept in.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 4,

moved, in line 66, to omit “without examination or probation.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 6, Grade of persons on first entry into the Administrative and Clerical Division,

moved, in line 55, to omit “to a clerical post”; in line 56 after “Division” to insert “to a post the duties whereof are exclusively clerical.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

said that, according to this clause, a young gentleman with a B.A. certificate could start with a salary of £180 a year. He would like to call the attention of the House to a case of a young man who was in the service in the third grade, and who had since taken the B.A. degree. There was an officer who had been in the service for seven years. He had taken his B.A. degree. He was graded at a salary of £135. If the Bill went through the young gentleman who came from a university with a B.A. degree could go into the second grade with a salary of £180, while the other man remained at a salary of £135. He moved two provisos dealing with the cases of men who had taken their B.A. degree since they had entered the service and men who were in the service and took their degree. In these provisos, provision was made for men in the third grade of clerical assistants going into the second grade at a corresponding salary in that grade. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendments, for they would have the double object of preventing injustice being done and encouraging young men in the service to spend their spare time in the evenings improving their education.

It is a pity this amendment is not on the paper. I—

On a point of explanation, I would like to say—

said that he could not allow the amendment to be put, as it meant an increase of expenditure.

On clause 8, Higher posts, how filled,

suggested the addition of the words “security as indicated by their rank in the various grades.”

accepted the amendment.

On clause 11,

moved to add at the end the following new sub-section, viz. : “(4) Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in this section contained, an Attorney-General of a Province shall not be discharged from the public service, except by the Governor-General for cause assigned, which shall be communicated by message to both Houses of Parliament within seven days after the removal, if Parliament be then in session, or if Parliament be not then in session, within seven days after the commencement of its next ensuing session.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 12,

moved the insertion of the word “undue” before “political,” and the insertion of the word “other” before “influence”. He thought that if the Minister made it clear what was meant, it would be better from his point of view.

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 19,

moved, in line 8, after “emoluments,” to insert “an officer may elect to contribute in respect of any period of authorised leave of absence without pay”; in line 17, after “leave” to insert “an officer may elect to contribute in respect of any period of authorised sick leave without pay.”

seconded.

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 27,

moved to omit paragraph (b).

This was agreed to.

On clause 28,

moved, after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph (b): “(b) he be removed from the public service under the provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section 15; or”.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On the second schedule,

moved, in the fourth column, line 15, after “inclusive,” to insert “and so much of section 19 as relates to pension rights”; and after “Natal. Act No. 4 of 1905,” to insert “Natal. Act No. 9 of 1907. To amend Law No. 7 of 1890 entitled a Law to establish a Public Service Guarantee Fund. The whole”.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

The remaining committee amendments were agreed to.

moved that the Bill be tread a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said that there was one point brought out by the hon. member about men who had passed their B.A. examination. The Minister’s attention having been drawn to it, perhaps he would answer the point to see if he could not meet these men.

I am going to do my best.

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, in line 6, to omit “such”.

asked the Minister if he had looked into this matter?

said he had looked into it and found that it would be necessary to reinstate the word “such” in line 6, and omit “so far as” in line 12 to the end of the section. That would meet the case exactly.

said he would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the words “and privileges” had been cut out by the Select Committee. He asked why that omission had been made?

said that that point was fully thrashed out in Select Committee, and it had been decided to delete these words.

said he would appeal to the Minister to allow the words to remain in the clause.

said that these words were only repeating clause 144 of the Act of Union, and he did not see that they were necessary.

said that the Act of Union did not reserve too much to these men, and they should give them as much as they could.

said that his only point was, not that the words might not be desirable, but that they were useless. This section only reserved to the men what was given to them by section 144 of the Act of Union.

The Select Committee’s amendment was negatived.

moved, in line 12, after “member,” to omit all the words to the end of the clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amendment previously moved by Mr. Andrews therefore dropped.

New clauses 84 and 85,

The committee reverted to the new clauses, to follow clause 83 proposed by the the Minister of Railways and Harbours, standing over, viz.:

84. All gratuities and benefits to persons who on the thirty-first day of May, 1910, were in the permanent employment of the Administration, and whose services have been dispensed with prior to the commencement of this Act owing to a reduction in, or re-organisation of, staff, or for other good cause, are hereby confirmed and approved : provided that all such gratuities and benefits shall have been duly authorised by the Administration before being paid or awarded: Provided further that returns of all payments and benefits under this section shall be laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.

85. All appointments and removals of servants to or from the service made by and with the authority of the Administration on or subsequent to the 31st day of May, 1910, but before the commencement of this Act, are hereby confirmed and approved, although they may, in some cases, have been effected prior to the consent of the Governor-General being obtained, or even without such consent.

said that he had given notice to move a new clause 84 as follows: “All gratuities and benefits to persons who on the 31st day of May, 1910, were in the permanent employment of the Administration and whose services have been dispensed with prior to the commencement of this Act owing to a reduction in, or reorganisation of, staff, or for other good cause, are hereby confirmed and approved: provided that all such gratuities and benefits shall have been duly authorised by the Administration before being paid or awarded: provided further that such gratuities and benefits are not in excess of what would have been authorised if this Act had been in force.” He went on to say that he intended to move this clause with the omission of the words “and benefits” in each case, so that the clause only referred to gratuities. This was in accordance with the suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee

said that it was a perfectly unconstitutional practice for this House to vote any unauthorised expenditure without having the details in a proper schedule placed before it. He would like to ask the Chairman’s ruling as to whether this clause was not an indemnity clause. He regarded it as a clause indemnifying the Minister of Railways for certain payments made without Parliamentary sanction. He asked if it were possible for them to introduce the clause into the Bill without altering the title so that it would not only be a Bill to deal with railway discipline and harbour service, but also an indemnifying Bill. It was a new principle, and should not be introduced into their legislation. Ordinary Bills dealing with the future should not have indemnities dealing with the past, and should not have such a clause introduced as was then before the House. He asked the Chairman’s ruling on the point as to whether it was competent for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to move the new clause 84, which authorises the payment of certain gratuities which had already accrued in this Bill, which deals with the Railways and Harbours Service generally.

ruled that in his opinion it would have been better to have provided for the payment of these gratuities in a separate financial measure, but as notice had been given to amend the title so as to cover the clause he would leave the matter to the committee.

said he approved of the clause, but before the committee was entitled to approve of the payments they should have a schedule of unauthorised expenditure before them so that they would not be asked to vote for certain services of which they had no information whatever. He moved that the Chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the question.

The motion was agreed to.

The House resumed.

stated the point which had arisen in committee and that the committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon, and that he had accordingly been ordered to report progress, and asked leave to sit again.

explained to Mr. Speaker that his point was that the committee had before them a Bill to provide for the organisation and discipline and the payment of retiring pensions of persons in the employ of the railways and harbours of the Union. If the question which the clause referred to was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, were they expected in that committee to vote gratuities that had been granted without being authorised by Parliament—whether the gratuities were right or wrong—without concurring with the constitutional practice that had always guided them in the Cape Parliament and in that Parliament, of having a schedule of the amounts placed before them? The point was one of extreme constitutional importance, because it was extraordinary to ask the committee on a Bill of that sort to vote an indemnity. Even if that were approved, he contended that it would be necessary to alter the title of the Bill so that it would be not only a Bill dealing with the discipline of railways and harbours, but also an Indemnity Bill. He was very anxious to have the ruling of the Speaker for future guidance of the House, not in connection with the gratuities, for which he would vote, but whether indemnities could be introduced into any ordinary Bill and the House asked to vote without a schedule of unauthorised expenditure being placed before the members.

said that when the Bill was introduced it was referred to a Select Committee. There was some opposition, so he did not press the matter, but he gave notice and got the Government Attorney’s authority for the expenditure incurred. He gave notice that he would also move, when the time came after this clause was adopted, that the title of the Bill should be altered. He would only mention further that he laid on the table of the House some time back all the payments made—all the unauthorised payments—the schedule of gratuities and pensions, and moved that they be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee then approved of, if he might say so, all the gratuities paid, and suggested, or recommended, that the amounts paid as pensions should be dealt with in the ordinary way by the Pensions Committee, and that it should allow that committee to make its recommendations.

said that the schedules of unauthorised expenditure were submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, but they had never been submitted to this committee, and he contended that they should be submitted to this committee before they were asked to vote. Of course, so far as the payments were concerned, it did not make any difference whatsoever to the people, because they had already received their money.

said that he should like to add that he laid the list of gratuities and pensions on the table, and moved that it be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

The schedule was submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, but I submit that it should have been brought before this committee.

The question raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is certainly an important one and one for the consideration of which I would have liked to have had more time before giving a definite ruling thereon. In my opinion it would certainly have been better if the clause in question had formed the subject of an Indemnity Bill as it is proposed by the insertion of the clause to import into the Bill which is intended to deal with the future regulation of the Railways and Harbours Service, a provision to cover something which has happened in the past. It is however, a matter of form, and as the Minister has given notice of an amendment to the title of the Bill which, if agreed to, will cover the proposed new clause, and, in view of the lateness of the session, I am not prepared now to rule the proposed new clause out of order and will leave it to the committee and to the House to decide.

The House thereupon resumed in committee.

said that he would suggest to the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) that he accept this clause. As a matter of fact, the schedule was laid before the Public Accounts Committee in detail. It was laid on the table of the House, and any member of the House could have inspected it. It was referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and some members of the committee went into it. He certainly did. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, also went into it.

said Mr. Speaker had left the matter in the hands of the committee. In other words, he (Sir Thomas) was in the hands of the Minister, because he had got the majority. He had, however, done his duty in raising the point, which was a very important one. His point was that the Minister had no right to use his majority to make this House depart from the constitutional procedure which had guided it for years, because the rules of the old Cape Parliament were the rules of this House. He wished to protest against a procedure which compelled him to vote for certain amounts of unauthorised expenditure without having the schedule before him.

said that if he had thought that there would be any necessity to introduce a separate Bill he would have done so at once, but he mentioned the fact that he was going to lay on the table of the House all the information. He had said that whatever the Public Accounts Committee advised he would adhere to. He was just as anxious as anyone on that side to preserve the traditions of Parliament, but he thought this was a trifling thing, and they were all agreed that the money had been spent. He thought that the hon. member was making too much, of this matter, after taking into account the fact that it had been dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee. He moved, as an amendment, to the proposed new clause 84: In lines 1, 6, and 8, to omit and benefits”,

said he had understood that the hon. Minister was going to take the proper constitutional course, and withdraw this clause ; now he came at this late hour with his amendment, and asked them to vote for it. If they did this they might be asked on future occasions to vote hundreds of thousands of pounds that they knew nothing about.

said this was a very loose way of legislating, and lately the House had been doing a great many things that they ought not to have done. This clause, if passed, would in the future be pointed to as a precedent for legislation in this way. It occurred to him that this was a whitewashing clause and an indemnifying clause. It was clear, in his opinion, that the time would come when it would be thrown in their teeth that they had been legislating in a very loose and unconstitutional way. Therefore he asked the Minister not to press this clause. Here they were asking the House to indemnify the Minister. How did they know that actions were not pending against the Government for illegal dismissal?

said there was a schedule attached, which gave him the necessary information how the money was expended. Hon. members had an opportunity of examining it at any time.

The amendment was agreed to.

The two new clauses 84 and 85 were agreed to.

On old clause 84,

in explaining the clause, said that they had been employing men after and prior to Union, for special work in connection with washaways. Formerly, these men had been appointed by their General Managers in the various Provinces, and this they continued to do, until it was pointed out to them that only the Governor-General had the power to make these appointments. Every person employed on the railway had an appointment, whether for work on a wash away of a bridge or a culvert, and as these appointments had been made by the General Manager it was found that this was illegal and that they should be made by the Governor-General.

said that he only wished to point out that here again the committee was asked to confirm appointments made by the Railway Department. He was not aware that any other department had come to Parliament and asked for confirmation. If these appointments or removals were justified, why come to the House at all? He had never come across any Act of Parliament with a clause of this nature.

said the position he took up on this clause in the Select Committee he took up now. How could he approve of all appointments and removals of servants made by the administration if he did not know the facts of the case? Suppose any man had been dealt with unjustly, had they any right to prevent him obtaining legal redress?’ That was a very serious position for the committee to take up, and it would be adopting a dangerous principle if it agreed to a clause of this sort. He was not a lawyer, but his opinion was that if the clause were passed any man who had illegally been dismissed would be deprived of all legal redress. He would not be a party to it. But it would be useless challenging a division.

In reply to Mr. H. W. SAMPSON (Commissioner-street),

said he had given attention to the question of an Appeal Board. Two members of the House had given him their views in writing on this matter He had laid these views before the Railway Board, and they were discussed very fully. The opinion of the Board was that they could not recommend any alteration in the clause as passed by the Select Committee.

On new clause 3,

stated that when this clause was ordered to stand over on the 2nd May, new clause 3, proposed by the Select Committee, had been put, viz.: “(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Governor-General may from time to time delegate the power of removal of servants, as also the power of increasing and diminishing the number of such servants and their emoluments.”

Upon which an amendment had been proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt: To omit this clause, and to substitute: “(3) Subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council the Board may from time to time appoint so many servants as may be required for the service, increase, or, without prejudice to the rights which a servant may have under section 82, diminish the number of railway servants and their emoluments in such manner as from time to time may be prescribed, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, and without prejudice to the same rights, may discharge any railway servant. The Governor-General may from time to time delegate the power of appointment or discharge of servants.”

Upon which clause the Minister of Railways and Harbours had moved: In line 1, to omit “subject to the authority of”; in the same line, after “Council,” to omit “the Board” ; and in lines 5 and 8, before “servants” and “servant” respectively, to omit “railway”.

said that when the Bill, as originally printed, was before the Select Committee, he proposed the clause he now moved, and it was passed by 13 votes to one. Afterwards the Minister was so persistent, and by some powers of persuasion which were unknown to him (Sir Thomas), got the Select Committee practically to go back on its original decision. The clause was then deleted, but when the Bill came before the Committee of the Whole House, it was found that there was no statutory provision for working the Bill at all, so the Minister moved the insertion of clause 3 as it now stood. The reason for his (Sir Thomas’s) amendment was to establish in this Bill the principle that the Board was the administrative body. They had passed a clause that referred to the administration of the railways. But nobody knew what that administrative work was. The members of the Board were examined, and they stated that they did not know what their powers were, and if they were to be responsible for the control and administration of the railways, they considered it necessary that a clause of this sort should be included in the Bill. If they knew their powers and responsibilities, they would be ready to exercise those powers and responsibilities. This matter had been the cause of much commotion in the Ministry, and one hon. Minister found it necessary to withdraw from the councils of the water-tight compartments. The Minister of the Interior might find himself placed in the same position one of these days, and he did hope that the Minister would give the amendment his support. The intention of the South Africa Act and the members of the Convention was that the railways should be controlled by a Board. There had been some extraordinary circumstances since the happenings in the committee, and his hon. friend the Minister of Rail ways was one of the twelve who voted in the majority when the question was before the committee.

said that he was not going into the extraordinary circumstances. He thought, at the end of a weary session, they would only deal with hard facts. He supposed some of them had such a gift of imagination that they could not come down to mother earth. The clause, as it stood, was the clause which he originally introduced.

No.

Yes; the clause as I proposed to amend it.

You voted for my clause.

I am not talking about that. The hon. member seems proud of the fact. (Laughter.) “I am proud of the fact,” he says, “that the Minister of Railways has been associated with me.” (Laughter.) It must flatter him because he repeats it so often. (Laughter.) Continuing, the Minister said that the clause was practically the same as the original clause. The question turned upon whether the South Africa Act would be altered. He said that if the Act were not altered he would accept the clause, but that if the Act were altered he would not accept the clause. They consulted the legal opinion which they were used to consulting, and the result was they found that this clause would alter the South Africa Act. It altered the Act to the extent that it gave the Board larger powers. This Act was not going to take away from the powers of the Board or give the Board extra powers, and as he had promised at an earlier stage of the session he would introduce a Bill next session defining the powers of the Board.

said he hoped the committee would not allow themselves to be misled by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Owing to it being found that the original clause meant a breach of the Act of Union, the members of the Select Committee had altered their opinion. One of the members of the Select Committee especially had felt very strongly on the matter. But another reason why he had changed his mind was that it would be unwise to vest the Board with too wide powers. It would be bad policy, he held, to make the Board independent, and not responsible to anyone. The amendment gave them more power than they had under the Constitution.

said he did not know which section of the Act of Union would be altered. There was section 16.

No; that is not the section.

referred to sections 15 and 126 of the Act of Union, and said it seemed to him that there was no force in the argument raised by the hon. member for Hoopstad when he said that they were setting up an irresponsible body. This irresponsible body could only exercise its authority subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. The Ministers of State were responsible to this House for anything that was done by its officers, whether they simply accepted the resolutions of the Board or whether they overruled them. What they contended was that if that Board were in any real sense of the word to carry out the control and management of the railways given them by the Act of Union, they must have this power of appointment, subject always to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council, and if they were not to be given this power of appointment it seemed to him that the intention of the Government, when they defined the power to the Board, was to make them a mere advisory body and to deprive them of all executive powers.

said he was not concerned with his legal hair-splitting which had been going on, but he was concerned as to the position of the railwaymen who had to serve under this Bill. It appeared to him, reading between the lines of this amendment of the hon. member, that the murder was out, and the cloven hoof had been shown. This was a method whereby they could disfranchise the railwaymen, not take the vote from them, but render their votes valueless. The hon. member for Hoopstad had said, and said rightly, that they would be subjected to an irresponsible body, and consequently the vote of the railwaymen would be of no use to them. Some 26,000 men in this country would be immediately disfranchised if they allowed the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to be placed in this Bill. In Australia they had a Railway Board. What was the result of the working of that Board? Precisely the same result as he was indicating now—these men’s votes were valueless. He hoped that this committee would not merely hesitate, but would refuse to sanction the passing of this amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

The new clause inserted by the Select Committee was negatived.

asked whether it would not be possible for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to give these various legal opinions to which he had referred, because he understood, among the opinions which the Minister had got, there was a difference of opinion. He understood that the Minister’s only objection to the clause was that there might be legal objections. He thought it had now been made sufficiently clear in committee that there could be no legal objections to the clause. It seemed to him that there was a determination on behalf of the Minister and those who sat behind him to make the Railway Board a farce and prevent them from having any proper control over the railways, as was laid down in the Act of Union.

put the question: That the words “subject to the authority of” proposed to be omitted by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, stand part of the clause proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee in subsection (1), lines 49 and 50, to omit “artisans skilled two years, and semi-skilled, and employees” and to substitute “those”.

moved as an amendment to this amendment in sub-section (1), line 46, after “employment for” to omit all the words down to “two years” in line 50, and to substitute “one year”. The object of the amendment, he said, was to put officers, employees, and artisans all on one footing, so that there would be no discrimination in the various grades of the service in the matter of obtaining Government employment. It was doing the Government a bad service if it could not be found out whether a person was entitled to go on the permanent service inside of twelve months. They had yet to learn the reason why there was discrimination between the various grades. The matter had been before the committee, and an amendment was moved. The hon. Minister said he would look into the matter to see if he could not meet it, but he did not seem to have done so.

said that he could not accept the amendment.

said he was sorry that the Minister would not accept the amendment, because he was going back upon the attitude he adopted last year. In Select Committee last year, the Minister accepted the principle of equality.

The minister of railways and HARBOURS said that he agreed with the Bill last year, but the committee this session had considered the matter very carefully, and had made certain amendments to the Bill with which he agreed, and he felt that he must support the committee.

asked if it was the intention that the General Manager should give these certificates after two years?

Yes, that was the idea.

asked the Minister whether he would not delete the word shall’ for the purpose of inserting “may” in line 67. The Minister shook his head, but why should he not accept this? What they wanted he could see was a reserve of men to come and go upon He moved to substitute “shall” for “may”.

Both amendments were negatived.

On the motion of the MINISTER of RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS,

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee in line 70 to insert “(in the medium of either official language)”.

said m committee the hon. member for Mossel Bay made a very interesting speech upon the point and he noticed that eight voted for it and five against it. When the clause was discussed in the select Committee they heard from the Minister that there was to be a practically compulsory bilingual clause inserted.

I did not say it.

said it was stated that they were dealing with the matter in connection with another Bill and that whatever clause was put in the other Bill would be inserted in this one. Knowing the pressure that was being exerted, they surmised what the character of the amendment would be, and for the purpose of frustrating it they moved an amendment. It would be most prejudicial to the railway service to compel those joining it to pass examination in both languages before they could become permanent railway officials. They said they should be compelled to pass an examination in either one of the official languages. The only reason for deleting this was for the purpose of the Minister moving the clause on the paper. If that were to be made to apply to the old railway servants whose rights were, supposed to be safeguarded by the Act of Union, it would be not only unjust and unfair, but it would make the working of the railways impossible. It would be found in practice that the Government could not insist on carrying it out, because if they did they would have a state of affairs that would be entirely impossible. He (Sir Thomas) had said in the Select Committee that he was prepared whenever it was necessary that a railway man should possess bilingual qualifications that by all means the Administration should be allowed to decide. They took it now that the Minister, or the political party that supported him, would be the Administration of the railways. Under those circumstances he was not prepared to insert the deletion of these words. He did not want to go over the arguments that were brought forward last night, but outside those arguments in so far as the railways in the Union were supposed to be managed on business principles, the proposals contained in the clause were not business principles. If the amendment were adopted it would do incalculable damage to the people Belonging to the service before Union.

said his hon. friend had stated that he would not take the responsibility for this clause; but the point was that his hon. friend was responsible for the clause touching the language qualification. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort himself was responsible for introducing the question. The original clause of the Bill said nothing about the language question; it simply stated that anybody who entered the railway service would be required to pass an educational test which would be prescribed by regulation. There was not a word about the language question there. Then the hon. member moved the proviso that no such candidate should be required to have a knowledge of the two official languages. The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would be to hang up the whole of the railway service for the reason that the Administration would not be able to make appointments. The Administration would not be able to put an educational test in any language. His hon. friend had referred to the hon. member for Riversdale, but the hon. member for Riversdale had no idea of introducing the language question, and moved his amendment to try and assist the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The next time it would be far better if his hon. friend did not follow the lead of the hon. member for Pretoria East, who always argued in a circle.

was understood to say that the original clause merely stated that the candidate would be required to pass such educational test as might be prescribed by regulation. The hon. member for Pretoria East and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort were responsible for introducing the language question. The Minister was further understood to say that persons appointed to the clerical staff of the railway, after a number of years, would be required to pass this examination. It did not touch the artisans, of whom there were a great number on the railways, and it did not touch the poor whites, to whom reference had been made by an hon. member on his side of the House. They did not say to the running staff that they must know Dutch. They said it only to the clerical staff, and they said that they must do exactly what was required in the clause which was passed last night. This would put the clerical staff of the railways in exactly the same position as the Civil Servants in the clause which was passed last night.

said his hon. friend was not exactly fair. He was now proposing to move out these words, and he said that that would only allow him to put bilingual qualifications upon the clerical staff of the Railway Administration. The clause said that “every servant …. may be appointed to permanent employment if he… (c) possesses such educational qualifications in the medium of either official language as are prescribed by regulation.” If this were moved out, every member of the railway service who had been given permanent employment, whether he were a signalman, or an engine driver, or an artisan, the Administration, which was the Minister, because he had ignored the Board, could prescribe that he must pass that examination bilingually if he so desired.

I am going to move clause 6.

Yes. Clause 6 will refer to the clerical staff, and when you have clause 6 you say that every member of the clerical staff shall qualify for entrance to the service bilingually or shall qualify within a period of five years, and if he does not qualify in a period of five years all promotion in the service will be at a standstill, save and except in the cases mentioned last night. Proceeding, the hon. member said they were rather nervous, when they saw his hon. friend under the pressure that was brought to bear upon him, about giving him carte blanche to do as he liked in these things. He was very much amused with the position of the hon. member for Worcester, who was trying to justify his action in connection with this matter to his railway constituents. He could well imagine how difficult it was for the hon. member with his responsibility to wriggle out of his position, because the Minister of Railways and Harbours told the Select Committee that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the Railways and Harbours Discipline Bill exactly on the same basis as they were dealing with the Public Service Bill.

said he agreed with the regulations in respect to the clerical staff, but not as it affected mechanics in the workshops. It was not necessary in their case to possess a knowledge of the Dutch language. Of course, it was always necessary where an official came into contact with both naces that he should possess a knowledge of the two languages. But language had nothing to do with the filing of a piece of steel. He thought the Minister should make some definite pronouncement upon the clause that the language test would not apply where only purely mechanical skill was concerned.

said he would take the opportunity of reminding the hon. member for Commissioner-street that it was only yesterday that he had said, “In a bilingual country it is only right that every Civil Servant should know the two languages.” Everything he had then said was going to be applied in that clause, and he hoped the hon. member realised what he had done.

rose to explain that it had been reported in a certain newspaper that he said every Civil Servant in this bilingual country should have a knowledge of Dutch; what he actually did say was every clerical Civil Servant.

remarked that a great man once said: “You may fool some of the people all the time, or you may fool all the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” He wanted to deal with the hon. member for Worcester, who had endeavoured by argument to throw the blame on the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for the re-introduction of the language question. They were told last night when the debate on clause 137 took place that the people who drafted that clause had not been sufficiently cautious to see that all the safeguards were included. The hon. member for Worcester was blaming the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for now trying to make it clear. His arguments were entirely wrong. It was perfectly right that the matter should be cleared; it would be better for everybody. He (Mr. Nathan) did not wish to interpret clause 137, nor was he present at the Convention, and proceeded to refer to a speech made by Sir G. Farrar in Pretoria when the Act of Union was being adopted. Sir George said that many people had asked how the language clause would work He said it would work with mutual forbearance and toleration. It was stated at the Convention that there should never be an attempt to thrust the language of one people down the throats of the other. That, added Mr. Nathan, had never been contradicted.

said he did not see why the hon. Minister should not accept the amendment. Did he not see that sub-section (c) gave him power over the whole of the service. The railway service was not like the public service. It was a business concern. There were various departments—mechanical clerical, and so on, and the Minister must deal with each class of men in a different way. If the Minister would accept power to deal with the matter by regulations, he was prepared to trust him in drawing up these regulations.

said that last night, in dealing with this subject, he was carried away, he must confess, by the heat of the debate, and he did not think that he stated his case perhaps as clearly as he might have done, and for that reason he trusted the Chairman would allow him to put it again as briefly as possible. He would begin by drawing a simile, because what occurred in the Convention was precisely what occurred when they drew up mining agreements in the city of Johannesburg. The promoter and the vendor came together and discussed the question in all its bearings, and finally their decision was recorded by the best lawyer they could obtain in the city. But, later on, it was discovered that another interpretation could be put on the agreement, and there were houses in Johannesburg that were known as shark houses, where they took advantage of any such misinterpretation. But there were-other houses of the highest repute; they would never go back on the understanding, no matter what interpretation might be put on the agreement. That had been his experience in Johannesburg, and he would like them to see what had occurred in the Convention. A number of hon. gentlemen came together representing South Africa. They arrived at a definite and clear understanding, and that understanding was recorded; but later on circumstances enabled them to put another interpretation upon that document that was not really meant at the time it was made. He understood that hon. members opposite had put such a construction upon the clause in the Act of Union that members upon his side of the House said was never intended. Granting, for the sake of argument, that this construction could be admitted and justified, he could only say this: that certain gentlemen, believing in the good faith of hon. gentlemen opposite, had prevailed upon the people of Natal and other English-speaking parts of the country to come into Union, but to-day what happened was this, that a majority of members in that House were forcing upon a minority an interpretation of that clause which they had never entertained. There was a distinct question of equity and justice involved in this, which should have debarred the Government from forcing this clause upon an unwilling people.

In carrying out their language ideals the Dutch could only succeed in doing so to the detriment of those who represented the British section in the community. (Hear, hear.) He contended that in politics a principle should stand in the same relation to an honest politician that a flag stood in relation to a good soldier. (Hear, hear.) He wished to show how the clause was going to act. First of all officials would make attempts to acquire the language. A great many would fail, and when they found that this failure would become a permanency they would leave the service, and behind them they would leave a trail of discontent. At a later stage it would be found that preference would be given to the men who understood the greatest amount of Dutch, and they would take the plums, while the men who had only a strong knowledge of English would in time disappear. There was no doubt whatever that the principle underlying this clause was that eventually the service would be made a Dutch-speaking one. To discover what a politician was going to do in the future it was necessary to go back to the past. During the war it was an open secret that after the British had been excluded from the country their language would go with them. As coming events cast their shadows before, he took the shadow as the intention of an attempt to filch from the English their rights. His remarks had been called racialistic—they were racialistic, and clearly so, but how was it started? Years ago, when the language and political rights of the English people were in jeopardy and an objectionable law was forced on the British people, the other side threw down the gage of racialism, and he deliberately took it up. It was a very anomalous position that the British occupied in South Africa and they occupied it only by virtue of the existence of an effective Liberal Government in England to-day. In a country they had acquired by purchase and by conquest, and over which the British Hag floated, they were not allowed to exercise their linguistic rights. What did they think would be the position if the British Navy were removed and South Africans became the subjects of the German Empire? Was it possible that this same law would be made to apply to German subjects? He did not think so. He contended that this was a distinct infringement of a hereditary principle, and if the majority of that House were not prepared to accept it then he wanted to make it clear that it was not his intention to do so. Speaking on his own behalf and the people whom he represented, he would say that he was prepared to defend his contention to the bitter end.

Perhaps hon. members are not aware that at present it is the law in the Free State and the Transvaal. If these words were deleted then we would have the Free State and the Transvaal law on the question.

Then you do not require to enforce it.

said that with regard to what the last speaker had said about his speech, he thought that hon. member was right for the reason that he did not believe that any hon. member in that House would have made such a statement. Another point had been made of his hon. friend on his left (Mr. Sampson) being in favour of all Civil Servants being bilingual, because if they read the Bill and the amendment they would see that it only applied to the clerical section and not the general division.

read the Free State and Transvaal law on the subject, and said that if these words were deleted this Bill would be exactly the same. He was understood to say that his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, accepted it.

I knew you better than he did. (Laughter.)

I have had—

An hon. member made an interruption which was inaudible.

This is not a Donnybrook fair. Perhaps the hon. member for Fort Beaufort will keep quiet for a little while. He doesn’t seem to be quite responsible this evening. He would not ask that he be removed. (Laughter.) Continuing, he was understood to say that if this proposal were accepted they would have what was the law in the Free State and the Transvaal. By adopting this ungrammatical amendment the law would be altered. He wanted to get back to what was the law in the Transvaal and the Free State. He did not propose to go any further or do anything less. This had nothing to do with the language question. The language question was a separate one, and could be dealt with separately.

said that the words “educational qualifications” was a broader term than simply language qualifications. It included language qualifications. He should say let the Minister have the power to prescribe examinations, but let him drop clause 6.

said that in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Springs, he did not think it was a matter of taste. If the hon. member for Commissioner-street had said that he did not intend to say what he had attributed to him he would have accepted it, but he heard the hon. member use the words that were attributed to him.

said that he used more words than the hon. member had attributed to him. What he said was the clerical staff of the Civil Service.

I rise to a point of order. Is this the business before the House? (Hear, hear.)

moved to delete subsection (c), for the purpose of inserting: “(c) Possesses educational qualifications in such subjects, other than that of language, as are prescribed by regulation; and”.

said it was now possible for the Minister to prescribe Greek as a subject. He moved to omit the word “educational.”

asked if the Minister insisted upon passing new clause 6? Would he accept an addition to sub-section (c) as follows: “Provided that no servant shall be examined in regard to his knowledge of either official language, except as provided m section 6.”

said he would accept that.

said he would withdraw his amendment.

thought should not accept the suggestion of hon. Minister to take out the words and rely upon substituting another clause. They had the clause, and let them stick to that.

said he took up the same position as he did during the previous evening’s debate, that no amendment should be made in respect to the official languages. They had no definition of the term “clerical staff” in the Bill, and if they confined its application to that particular body it would give rise to no end of exceptions being claimed. He would vote for the language clause standing as it did.

said he did not want to enter into the argument again, but he wanted to save the time of the House, and if a vote were going against him by voices he would take a division. The reason why they were determined, if possible, to protect the other branches of the service was by reason of their experience of the past. They did not trust the Minister of Railways simply on account of the circular that had been referred to. Everybody in the railway service who was being promoted from a temporary to a permanent position should have the opportunity of taking the educational test in either of the two languages.

Mr. Sampson’s amendment was withdrawn.

The Select Committee’s amendment was negatived.

moved that further consideration of clause 5 stand over until clause 6 had been disposed of.

The motion was agreed to.

New clause 6,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 5, viz.: 6: (1) An officer entering the service after the commencement of this Act who is appointed to a clerical Dost therein and who has not passed a prescribed examination in both official languages shall not be promoted to any higher grade than that to which he has attained in five years from the date of his first appointment to such post, unless he pass such an examination in both official languages as may be prescribed ; the standard of the last-mentioned examination shall be equal to the standard of the first-mentioned examination: Provided that if he has passed in either of the official languages at the first-mentioned examination he shall be exempted from further examination therein; Provided further that if the Administration be satisfied that the officer has, during the said period of five years, been stationed in places where he had no facilities for acquiring a knowledge of the language in respect of which he has not passed a prescribed examination, the Administration may grant him such extension of the said period as it may deem reasonable. (2) In appointing any servant to a post in which the knowledge of either or both of the official languages is necessary the Administration shall be satisfied that the servant possesses the language qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of the post.

said that he did not speak on the subject on the previous evening and he did not wish to give a silent vote on this clause. He wanted to point out that it was a distinct breach of faith with Natal to force this clause through. The Government would never have dared to face it had it not been for the members of Natal joining forces with them. The position was that the situation in Natal had been altered through their actions, and a Minister who sat well fed and silent and voted at the head of his new corps of National Scouts—(Cries of “Order.”) He would withdraw that, but he would say the Minister, who was voting at the head of his corps of scouts. Did these hon. members dare go into their own constituencies? (Cries of “Order.”) He wanted to say that the position was that their railway clerks could not rise in the service without they had got the bilingual qualification. That was a distinct breach of faith with Natal. It was entirely different to anything they had had in the past, and Natal would never have dreamt of coming into Union if they had had an inkling of this.

Question.

said they came into Union on the distinct understanding that there would be no compulsion with regard to the two languages. Natal had been sold in this direction in just over two years of Union. What were they going to take away from them next? They had already taken away from them what was safeguarded under the Act of Union. It was an insult to Natal by a Government that contained a member from Natal, and one from whom they had not heard a word on this subject.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

said that this clause created a new state of things, and it was most disgraceful, so far as Natal was concerned, to have it forced on her. In Natal they had very few people who knew the Dutch language. Wherever Dutch had to be used, they had plenty of bilingualists to use it. Natal would never have come into this partnership if they had thought this was the way they were going to be treated. If Natal had to take desperate measures over this and petition the Imperial Government to prevent this being forced upon her, the Government had only themselves to blame. He did not think the Prime Minister, when he next went to London, would receive the same plaudits as he had received on former occasions when they knew how he and his Government had treated the English-speaking people.

said that in justice to Natal he would like to say a few words. He had been one of the hardest workers to bring about Union, but he was quite sure that if the interpretation of this clause had been explained to the people of Natal there would have been a great majority against Union. With all due respect to hon. members opposite, he would like to point out that in Natal Dutch was a dead letter. At Durban and Maritzburg and all the large centres that language was not used, and if this clause were forced upon them it would be a great hardship to people there. The children would have no opportunities of speaking the language, and it would be very difficult to get efficient Dutch teachers. Young men in Natal had not opportunities of learning Dutch. If the proposal were carried they would hand down a heritage of woe to their children, who would curse them.

moved the insertion after “unless” in line 6 of the words “and until”.

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was then put.

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

moved to insert after “Regulation” at the end of paragraph (c) of sub-section (2): “Provided that no servant shall be examined in regard to his knowledge of either official language except as provided in section 6.”

Agreed to.

On the title,

moved in line 5, after “Union” to insert “and for the confirmation of certain appointments to and removals from that Department and for the payment of certain gratuities since the 31st day of May, 1910.”

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with amendments, which were set down for consideration at the next sitting.