from the Society of Accountants in the Cape Province, the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors, the Transvaal Society of Accountants, the Society of Accountants and Auditors in the Orange Free State Province, and the Natal Society of Accountants, for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the registration of accountants in the Union.

from A. C. Wallis, formerly a clerk in the Transvaal Native Pass Office, retired in 1912, for relief.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from J. G. de L. van Alphen, formerly in the Cape Education Department, praying that his service in that department be reckoned as continuous with his present service.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from W. Gifford, after ten years’ employment in the Natal Civil Service, retrenched in 1912, for relief.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from M. S. Maurice, formerly Cape Civil Service, for reconsideration of basis upon which his pension was calculated.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from P. Kelly, formerly clerk in the General Post Office, for relief.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from the widow of Sergeant-Major A. M. Darling, who served for twenty-four years in the Frontier Armed and Mounted Police of the Cape, for relief.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from members of a commission of the Dutch Reformed Church, praying that dagga be placed in the same category as xanthium spinosum, and its cultivation prohibited.

from. Margaret H. H. Greenway, teacher Dordrecht Public School, Wodehouse, for condonation of a break in her service.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from the widow of the late N. Russell, for fifteen years in the employ of the Cape Railway Department, for commutation of her pension.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from the widow of A. E. F. Kropf, late Chief Inspector of the Cape Mounted Police, for relief.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

Statement of all special warrants issued June 1, 1912, to December 31, 1912.

Government notices issued by Department of the Interior, June 5, 1912, to November 11, 1912; Census Report, 1911, annexures to general report, parts IV., V. and VI.

Return of Chiefs in Zululand who are paid stipends.

Government notices issued by the Department of Justice, August 16, 1912, to December 31, 1912.

Report of a committee appointed to inquire into and report on the prevention of explosions of gas and dust in the collieries in Natal. Mines Department Annual Report, 1911, Parts I. and II., by the Secretary for Mines and Commissioner of Mines, Natal, and the Government Mining Engineer. Mines Department Annual Report, 1911, part IV., White Labour Department. Report by Chief Inspector of Explosives on an accident on the field tram line, in the magazine area of the British South Africa Explosives Company’s works at Modderfontein, Transvaal, on April 1, 1912. Report and recommendations of Board of Conciliation and Investigation (Transvaal), to investigate the dispute between certain employees and the Rose Deep Gold Mining Company, Limited, and sixteen other gold mining companies. Government notices issued by Department of Mines, June 26, 1912, to January 23, 1913.

Annual report of Chief Conservator of Forests, 1911.

Return, showing particulars of special warrants issued by the Governor-General, May 27, 1912, to January 24. 1913.

Report of Commandant-General, Cape Colonial Faroes, year ended December 31, 1911, and six months ended June 30, 1912; report of Commandant-General, Natal Militia, year ended December 31, 1911, and six months ended June 30, 1912; report of Commandant, Transvaal Volunteers, year ended June 30, 1912; report of Minister of Defence, in terms of the provisions of part II. of the second schedule of the South Africa Defence Act, 1912.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that Guard F. Ridewood and Driver J. Gibson were dismissed from the service because they overran the crossing at Pauling on the 9th December last, and that the mistake occurred through the loss of the orders owing to defective clip on the engine; and if so, (2) whether the department will not reconsider their decision and award these servants a lesser punishment?

replied: (1) Guard F. Ridewood and Driver J. Gibson were dismissed for over-running crossing at Pauling as result of which collision with another passenger train proceeding in opposite direction was narrowly averted. Mistake cannot be said to have occurred through loss of order owing to defective clip on engine. If driver examined order when handed to him, as he should have done, he must have known he had to cross opposing train at Pauling, and all the circumstances go to show that trainsmen were fully aware when they left Highbury that they had to cross train at Pauling. Driver admitted his guilt and guard stated he applied brakes and endeavoured to stop train, but this is not borne out by evidence; (2) the reply is in the negative.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the Public Service Commission has taken any action with a view to giving public servants who have taken the degree of B.A. since entering the service of the Government, but before the passing of the Union Public Service and Pensions Act, such promotion as to ensure their seniority over graduate entrants into the public service under the provisions of that Act, as promised by the Minister of Finance last session; and whether, if no such action has been taken, he will make strong representations to the Public Service Commissioners as to the advisability of their taking steps to carry out the undertaking given by the Government last session?

replied: I am not aware whether the Commission has taken any action in the direction indicated by the hon. member who asks this question, but the matter will be referred to that body for its consideration.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that a motor bicycle belonging to one F. Grosse, of Bloemfontein, was used by one of the department servants at a time when it was in safekeeping of the department in a cloak-room at Jagersfontein; and (2) whether the department will reconsider Mr. Grosso’s claim for compensation for damage to the bicycle as the result of such use?

replied: (1) Yes; but motor cycle was deposited in cloak-room at Trompsburg, not Jagersfontein; (2) yes; consideration is being given as to whether the administration should not bear cost of repairing alleged damage.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether the men in the South African Railway workshops in the Cape and Natal Provinces are to be paid monthly instead of weekly from the 1st February, 1913; (2) whether he is aware that men who receive their wages monthly are usually obilged to obtain from tradesmen who supply them longer credit than if wages were paid weekly, and that the tradesmen who have to give long credit incur greater risk than those who give short credit and charge accordingly; and (3) whether he is aware that under these circumstances the change from weekly to monthly payments means that the actual purchasing power of the wages of the men will be diminished; and (4) whether the wishes of the men in regard to this change have been ascertained?

replied:

(1) Yes; in order to bring them into line with the system in vogue in the workshops in the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

In the Cape, weekly “subs.” are at present paid to workshop employees, except when they express a wish to the contrary, but no system of “subbing” is in force in the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

Under the new arrangement men drawing not more than: 11s. per diem at Pretoria, 10s. 6d. per diem at Bloemfontein, 9s. 6d. per diem at Durban and Pietermaritzburg, and 9s. per diem in the Cape workshops, will be allowed to draw “subs” weekly in accordance with the Cape practice, but the system of “subbing” will not apply to apprentices, improvers, and natives.

(2) and (3) The best answers to these questions are the facts that: (a) At Salt River, where the weekly “subbing” system has been in operation for many years, 140 men are, at their own request, being paid once a month; (b) at East London 86 per cent, of the white employees submitted a petition for monthly pay; (c) at Uitenhage many of the lower paid men have asked for monthly payments; and (d) no complaints have been received from the men in the Pretoria or Bloemfontein workshops regarding the disabilities of monthly pay.

Only with men in the lower ranks is there a likelihood of pecuniary loss through a monthly system of payment, and these men continue to be provided for by weekly “subs.”

(4) No; but the men have in some cases voluntarily expressed a preference for the monthly system of payment.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) Whether the Government have any knowledge of the arrangement proposed to be made between, the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the Mozambique Government whereby one-half of the wages of natives recruited in that territory is to be retained and paid to such natives on their return to Mozambique territory; (2) whether the Government have been consulted in the matter and whether they will lay all the papers in connection therewith upon the Table of the House; (3) whether under the treaty entered into in 1910 the right to recruit natives is not secured to the Transvaal without any such condition as it is now desired to impose with regard to payment of half wages in Mozambique; and (4) whether the Government propose to take any steps to veto the proposed arrangement?

replied:

(1) Yes. The proposed arrangement is briefly as follows:

(a) The contract will be for one year, during which period the whole of their wages will be paid to them in the Transvaal. If they re-engage for a further periods half of their contract wages will be paid on their return to Portuguese territory, except that the last month’s work will in all cases be paid for in full in the Transvaal.

The above is intended to apply to Portuguese natives from South of Latitude 22 deg. South, from 1st January, 1913, to 30th. June, 1914.

(b) After 1st July, 1914, it is proposed that all Portuguese natives shall be engaged on the following conditions:

Contract to be for 18 months, half of their wages for first twelve months to be paid on their return to Portuguese territory, and the whole of the wages for the remaining, six months to be paid in the Transvaal. If there is any re-engagement beyond 18 months, half of the contract wages will be paid on their return to Portuguese Territory.

1. (2) The Government have not yet been consulted in the matter by the Government of the Province of Mozambique. When this has been done the papers will be laid on the Table of the House.
2. (3) It is presumed that the Convention dated 1st April, 1909, is referred to. So far as it refers to the mode or place of payment of wages, the proposed arrangement cannot be said to be in conflict with the Convention.
3. (4) Not so far as the mode or place of payment of wages are concerned, but so far as the proposed agreement provides that the initial period of engagement after July, 1914, shall be 18 months, I am advised that this could not be carried out unless the Government gave its consent to an amendment of clause 6 of the Convention of 1909.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) What is the number of natives recruited north of latitude 22 degrees who were imported to the Witwatersrand mines since 1st July, 1912; (2) to what mines were these natives allotted; (3) what was the death rate among such natives on the several mines for the six months ended (a) 1st July, 1912, (b) 1st July, 1911, and (c) 1st July, 1910; and (4) what was the total death rate among natives recruited north of latitude 22 degrees in the six months ended (a) 31st December, 1912, (b) 31st December, 1911, (c) 31st December, 1910, and (d) 31st December, 1909?

replied as follows:

Number of natives recruited north of lat. 22 deg. who were imported to the following Witwatersrand mines since. 1st July, 1912 to date (24-1-13):

Death-rate from disease among natives from north of lat. 22 deg. south, employed on the folio-wing mines for the periods, January to June, 1912, 1911, and 1910.

Mortality from disease among natives from north of lat. 22 deg. south, employed in the proclaimed labour districts of the Transvaal for the six months ended 31st. December, 1912, 1911, 1910, and 1909.

asked the Minister of Mines how many applications have been received by the Mines Department for Miners’ Phthisis compensation, how many have been granted, and what is the average length of time which has elapsed between the receipt of the application and the granting of the compensation?

The number of applications received by the Miners’ Phthisis Board established under the Miners’ Phthisis Act, No. 19 of 1912, up to the 30th November was 1,800. The number on which decisions were given by the Board was 1,034. In reply to the last portion of the question the average rate of disposal was about 260 a month at first, but the rate of disposal tends to increase as the initial difficulties of administration are overcome.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether he is aware that miners who received benefit under the Miners’ Phthisis Provisional Compensation Act, 1911, are in distressed circumstances in England and other countries; (2) whether it is a fact that although fully qualified they are unable to obtain further compensation under the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, owing to the provision that they must obtain a medical certificate in South Africa, a condition with which it is impossible for them to comply; and if so (3) whether it is the intention of the Government to so amend the Act this session as to permit the Miners’ Phthisis Board to accept a certificate from any qualified medical man outside the Union?

(1) It has been reported to me by the Miners’ Phthisis Board that 65 applications have been received from oversea sufferers from miners’ phthisis. Of these (a) 50 are from miners who received benefits under the Miners’ Phthisis Allowances Act, 1911, and some of these are stated to be urgent, (b) 15 are from new applicants; (2) as regards applicants under (a) above, legal opinion is being obtained as to whether the medical examination undergone by these men under the Act of 1911 can be accepted by the Board as sufficient to enable them to consider their applications under the Act of 1912. A certificate under the previous Act will be accepted, if it can legally be done; (3) as regards applicants under (a) the question of fresh legislation will to a large extent depend on the result of the enquiry as to the legal position under the answer to the second question. As regards the applicants under (b) these persons did not make application in accordance with either the 1911 or the present Act, and in view of the wording of the present Act and the definition of “medical practitioner,” are unable to do so. Owing to the practical difficulties of obtaining satisfactory medical certificates from medical men in various parts of Europe, especially in regard to such a disease as miners’ phthisis, and of satisfying the Board as to the origin of the disease in each individual case, and the smallness of the numbers concerned it is not at present considered that fresh legislation in this direction should be introduced.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether he intends during the present session to introduce legislation prohibiting (a) the unlawful squatting of natives on private farms and (b) the purchase by natives of ground in areas inhabited by Europeans?

As regards the first part of the question laws are at present in force, and are being carried out in the Provinces of the Orange Free State and the Gape for the purpose of preventing the squatting of natives on landed property other than Native Reserves or Locations. These laws have on the whole worked satisfactorily. In Natal the law has long fallen into desuetude; its provisions have never been enforced, and no good purpose would be served in attempting to carry out the measure which is not calculated to meet the needs or difficulties of the existing situation. The Squatters Law in the Transvaal has not been consistently carried out: in some parts, particularly in the North it has never been applied, but in so far as its provisions can be utilised effect is given to them, and has been given to them since Union to prevent any new settlement of natives on private property in contravention of the law. Legal advice, however, shows that there are so many ways of evading the law that in cases where it has not for years been enforced action is not now practicable, and if a law were now passed which did not also deal with the subject matter of the second question it could only result in encouragement being given to the acquisition of land tribally and otherwise by natives. As regards the second part of the question, in only one Province of the Union, viz., the Orange Free State, does the existing law provide for prohibition of acquisition of land by natives. Elsewhere, except in particular areas and in respect of the operation of particular laws relating to land tenure, there is no restriction on the acquisition of lands by natives. These questions were dealt with by the South African Native Affairs Commission (1903-1905), and have particularly, as regards squatting on private property, been inquired into by a Select Committee of the House. The recommendations of the Commission were: That purchase by natives should in future be limited to certain areas, to be defined by legislative enactment; that purchase of land which may lead to tribal, communal, or collective possession or occupation by natives should not be permitted. The Commission further resolved: That whatever principles govern the settlement of the question of the purchase of lands by natives should apply equally to the leasing of lands by natives. The matter is one of the utmost importance to every section of the community, and the questions involved are of such a complex nature that I am not able to say that legislation will be passed during the present session of Parliament. At the same time the desirability of dealing with this important matter, with due regard to all interests concerned, wall continue to engage the serious attention of the Government.

asked what course the Government intends to adopt in future with regard to the Natal Poll Tax?

The Government intend to introduce legislation at an early date providing for the further suspension of the collection of the Natal Poll Tax.

asked the Minister of Mines whether he is aware that the existing provisions of the Gold Law regarding trading on mining areas has practically created a monopoly in rights of trading on such areas, and thereby creating great dissatisfaction among commercial men and others, and whether, in view of such dissatisfaction, the Government are prepared to introduce an amendment to the Gold Law throwing mining areas open to all traders?

I am not aware that the existing provisions of the Gold Law have created a monopoly in rights of trading on mining areas, or that dissatisfaction exists in regard to such trading. I may point out that under the provisions of the Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act of 1910 further sites for trading purposes can be selected whenever it can be shown that additional facilities are required in any mining district. In view of the provisions of the Act referred to, it is not considered that further legislation is at present necessary.

with leave, asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is prepared to allow the Railways and Harbours’ servants an extension of time beyond January 31, 1913, to consider the new regulations?

said that in view of the unforeseen delay which had occurred in getting the new regulations printed, he thought it would be reasonable to give the men another month in which to arrive at a decision with regard to the optional arrangements.

seconded.

said it did seem extraordinary that the Prime Minister should bring forward such a motion which altered the whole of the procedure without, giving a single word of explanation. During the first two sessions the only day that Government had for three weeks after the assembling of Parliament was Monday. Last year a Select Committee was appointed of a very representative character, and after extended deliberations the committee presented rules and regulations to the House. An alteration which was then made was that instead of Government having only Mondays from the beginning of the session, it should also have Fridays. Now, without a word of explanation the Prime Minister moved that the rights and privileges of private members should be wholly taken away from them. (Opposition cheers.) If the motion were adopted Parliament would be simply called together for the purpose of registering the decrees of the Government. Every private member had a duty to perform to his constituents and the country, but if the motion were carried the private members on both sides of the House would have only Tuesdays when they could ventilate any of their grievances or bring forward matters affecting the interests of their constituents. It was not a party question at all, but one of the rights of members who did not sit on the Treasury benches. If they took away Thursdays, which Government shared with private members, they would practically prevent hon. members asking questions of urgent public importance except on Tuesdays. He appealed to his right hon. friend to withdraw the motion, for if it were persisted in the House would be compelled to come to a division on it, and that would be unfortunate. Let them go on for a short time and see how the present arrangement worked, and then if Government found it required more time it could move for an additional day.

replied that there was no objection to postpone the date, but as there was a good deal of work to be done, it was necessary as soon as possible to lay down a definite day for Government business. Wednesday was an open order-day, and members could make use of it. The hon. the leader of the Opposition spoke of the interests of his constituents, but he seemed to forget that his constituents also looked to the Government to do something. (Hear, hear.) Many members came long distances and could not remain members of Parliament if the sittings became too protracted. To meet the Leader of the Opposition he would make the date the 27th of February, but he hoped the hon. member would also support him to get the business through. He hoped as soon as possible to sit two evenings in the week. (Cheers.)

suggested the Prime Minister should withdraw the motion. (Government cries of dissent.) To a very large section of the population the proceedings of that House had become a mere farce—(Opposition cheers)—because a great deal of the things which hon. members had to give their attention to did not affect the real welfare of the people. If the Government had indicated in the Governor-General’s speech a long programme of legislation or had presented a large number of Bills, something might be said for the motion, but as it was there were only one or two paltry Bills on the paper. Hon. members wasted a great deal of time—(hear, hear)-in discussing Bills which Government subsequently withdrew. Government Bills and Government business were not the business of the country—(Government laughter)—for very often these measures were introduced to stereotype the interests of those who were already doing well in the country.

did not think the Prime Minister was quite fair in this matter. He (Mr. Jagger) gave as much time to the business of the House as anyone—(hear, hear)—and to the neglect of his own business. He was surprised at the attitude of hon. members opposite, for they must remember that the motion would form a precedent and that they would not always sit where they did now. Governments were all the same in one respect—whenever they got on to the Treasury benches they wanted to monopolise the whole time of the House. Under this arrangement no motion in this House could be given notice of to come forward on a Wednesday. If this was carried they were practically shut out until Tuesday—one day. He agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) that the Government business was not the sole business of the country. It was an important part he admitted, but it was not the sole business. If the motion was carried it would be a precedent for other Governments of the future, and, therefore, in taking up the position they did, they had no wish to obstruct the work of the House, or Government business; but were simply doing it on behalf of the whole House. He was surprised that the Cape members of the Ministry, who had, in the days of the Cape Parliament, a great regard for the rights of private members, should support the Prime Minister in this matter. He moved to delete 13th February for the purpose of inserting 6th March.

seconded the amendent.

seconded.

The PRIME MINISTER suggested that the 27th of February be substituted.

The MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO moved to that effect.

seconded the further amendment.

said he thought that some reason ought to be given why Mr. Jagger’s amendment should not be accepted. Parliament was asked to do something it had never before been asked to do. If they had special reasons for this; if the Government had business they wished to move forward, so that private members must be put on one side to make room for Government business, then private members would have to yield; but he did think the Government should explain that there was some urgency. He did not think hon. members opposite realised the position.

We do.

Well, I don’t think you do. The hon. member has not seen the working of Parliament under these conditions. Proceeding, he said if the motion was agreed to they would have one day, and that day would be blocked by the first motion put down, which might take the whole of Tuesday to debate; and no member would have any other opportunity for a week of putting a motion on the paper; and then the same thing might happen again

On Mr. Jagger’s amendment being put to the vote it was declared negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—41.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Henderson, JamCoes

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

J. Hewat and C. L. Botha, Tellers.

Noes—65.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christiaan

Van Niekerk, Christiaan Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and C. T. M. Wilcocks, Tellers.

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister without Portfolio was then agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to, viz.: That from and after Thursday, the 27th February, 1913, Thursday be an Order Day, Government business to have precedence.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill relating to immigrants under contract to work for an employer within the Union.

seconded.

Leave was granted, and the Bill read a first time.

The second reading was set down for Wednesday, 12th prox.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision, by means of liens, for the payment of wages and other payments.

seconded.

Leave was granted, and the Bill read a first time.

The second reading was set down for Wednesday, 12th prox.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

I wish to point out that when notice of motion No. VII on the Order paper for to-day was given on the 24th instant, notice of motion No. I standing on the Order paper for the 13th proximo had already been set down for discussion. In my opinion the substance of the two motions is identical, and therefore to allow a discussion at this stage on Mr. Creswell’s motion would anticipate the discussion on Sir Percy Fitzpatrick’s motion. The notice of motion in Mr. Creswell’s name for to-day must therefore be discharged.

said that, with all submission to Mr. Speaker’s ruling, might he point out that there was only one portion of this motion in which any mention of white employment was made. The resolution of this House in the affirmative or the negative would not prejudice the discussion on Sir Percy Fitzpatrick’s motion at all. He would like to know if, with the leave of the House, his (Mr. Creswell’s) motion was amended to omit all the words after “Union” in the second line down to “and” in the third line, that would not make the motion perfectly in order. He wanted to point out that the connection between the importation of natives and the extension of the sphere of white employment—whether or not they were interdependent—was a matter which had not been decided by the House, and was a matter on which it had been impossible during the previous sessions, to get the opinion of the House. Therefore it was merely an assertion on his part that they were interdependent.

No; I must point out to the hon. member the same discussion will take place over that motion, and the hon. member will have every liberty to discuss the question on that motion.

Can we discuss the whole question of native policy on that motion?

I have given my ruling.

That in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the advisability of arranging by subsidy or otherwise for a cable news service to and from South Africa which shall be independent of, and not subject to, pressure from private newspaper monopolists. He said the reason why this motion had been put on the order paper was in order that they might consider in this House and come to a conclusion on a matter of the utmost importance to the whole of this Union. He referred to a conspiracy on the part of the organised Press of this country to shut out a paper which did not happen to agree with it politically or in any other way. He had with him copies of the “Evening Chronicle,” a paper published in Johannesburg, and which was not of the same political opinion, and was neither of the same financial opinion as the organisation which really ran the Press in this country. It might surprise members to know what had happened in this country in regard to the “Evening Chronicle” and its dissociation from the other papers of this country. It was no doubt known that there was a news agency controlled by Reuter, which was represented in every civilised country in the world. Would hon. members believe that Reuter’s Agency intimated to the editor of the “Evening Chronicle” that after the 31st of December last no further news would be supplied to the “Evening Chronicle” by them because it had been intimated to that powerful firm, which he had hitherto thought without bias, by that portion of the Press which was controlled by the Cape Times, Ltd., on the one hand, and the Argus Company on the other, that that paper must not be supplied with news? Up to that date the “Cape Times,” the “Argus,” the “Star,” the “Bloemfontein Post,” the “Sunday Post,” and the Salisbury “Herald” had been receiving their news from Reuter’s Agency for £132 a month. These papers insisted upon the “Evening Chronicle” being charged £200 a month or raising the price of the paper from 1d. to 3d. This paper properly refused to be dictated to and to raise its price, and consequently the cable news ceased. He might also mention that it had the alternative of paying £132 a month for half the service.

The real reason why this attack had been made upon the “Evening Chronicle” and why Reuter’s Agency had been pressed by these papers, was because the “Evening Chronicle” had been prepared to be fearless in its exposure of the financial methods of the people who dominated the other Press. It had been fearless in its exposure of certain methods of finance and politics. It was the first paper to draw attention to the E.R.P.M. scandal, which resulted in a Government inquiry? The fact of the matter was that Wernher, Beit and Co. were the people who had the whole of this country in their control; they had it in their control financially and also politically, in spite of the fact that a Nationalist majority sat in that House, and they moulded public opinion in whatever direction they liked through their Press, which they controlled absolutely. He admitted that the resolution was not worded strongly enough, and that it should have said that the State itself should form an agency for the dissemination of news.

who seconded, said that their complaint was that a system was allowed to prevail by which it was possible for a news agency to differentiate in rates between one newspaper and another to the detriment of the newspaper which was not in line with the monopoly of the newspaper owners in this country. That practically meant that an independent Press in this country could not survive. He maintained that it should not be in the hands of a monopoly to decide what news should or should not be given to the people of this country. When the shippers felt aggrieved in regard to shipping freights they asked the Government to intervene, and the Government did intervene and they had put them now on one common basis. The Government were now asked to prevent any differentiation of rates for news supplied to newspapers in this country. Were the Government, he asked, going to allow a monopoly to crush out all independent enterprise in the Press of this country? It had been a good matter for the Government to take up the sale and distribution of newspapers, and if that were a good matter, was it not a better matter also to take over the control and the supply of news? News of that kind should be disseminated through Government channels, and any monopoly would not then be able to crush and intimidate a small beginner in the newspaper line out of existence.

said that he must confess that he had considerable sympathy with the “Chronicle,” because, like every other person, he liked to encourage competition, and he believed in the freedom of the Press. No doubt, they all had complaints against the Press sometimes in regard to political reports, but he must say that, on the whole, the Press, dealt out its news in this country fairly and impartially, and compared favourably with the Press in other countries in that respect. (Hear, hear.) He did not think that the hon. member was quite correct when he had alleged, as he did, that the action of the Johannesburg and Cape Town newspapers to which he bad referred was an organised conspiracy to crush out their political rival. He did not think that politics had anything to do with the matter at all. (Hear, hear.) There were three Cape Town and three Johannesburg newspapers which subsidised Reuter’s Agency and guaranteed it against any loss on its working. Now, the whole of these newspapers did not belong to one political party, and they had the “South African News” of Cape Town and the “Rand Daily Mail” of Johannesburg, which did not belong to the party referred to by the hon. member. He thought that they must abolish the idea of that being a conspiracy of those newspapers to crush out a political rival. He quite agreed that these newspapers objected to the “Evening Chronicle” of Johannesburg being sold at 1d. It was one thing, however, to sympathise with a struggling newspaper, and another thing to create a Department or a Sub-department of the Government to collect news throughout the world, and purvey it throughout South Africa.

Why not?

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS went on to say that if the Government did such a thing he could quite understand that changes in the character of the news might take place when changes in the Government took place. (Laughter.)

He did not think that quite a strong enough case had been made out for establishing another department, although one might have sympathy with the motion. Although he regretted that the “Chronicle” could not get the news that they were willing to publish he did not think that there was any public demand for the Government to interfere in a private enterprise like that, and it must be remembered that the six newspapers in question paid a substantial sum to the Agency every month, and guaranteed it against any loss. Were they in a position or were they right in seeking to impose upon any agency or business firm terms under which they would be obliged to sell news, or whatever else they were selling at a fixed price and no other? (Hear, hear.) He understood that that agency charged these newspapers in Cape Town and Johannesburg one price, and newspapers in Pretoria, Port Elizabeth another price, and so-on; and were they to find fault with them for charging various prices in different places for the same article? They were not called upon to take the drastic action of establishing a news agency under Government control; and that being the case, he must oppose the motion.

said that he thought the House would thoroughly understand the point of view as expressed by the first two speakers, but he would like to know if any hon. member understood the point of view as expressed by the last speaker, who had been supporting every point of view in turn, and ended up in supporting none? (Laughter.) He thought the House ought to hesitate long, and do nothing to put an end to competition. Two years ago they had dealt with shipping matters, and let them see what happened now. He did not think his hon. friend in front of him (Mr. Jagger) was feeling extremely comfortable now. (Mr. JAGGER: “No. No.”) When they dealt with such matters they found that they made a mess of it, and they had found that to be the ease in such a matter as the Shipping Bill. Was it the business of that House that pressure had been put on a certain newspaper? It was infinitely easier to make out a ease where hardship had been caused through Trade Union combination. A sound policy for the Government was to let competition settle these matters. (Hear, hear.) If what members on the cross-benches had preached was Socialism, he was not a Socialist, and Socialism as preached on those benches would never win him—or any other sensible person. He thought the House would be wise in leaving that matter entirely alone. He agreed that hardship had been caused to that newspaper, but it was a question of competition; and he believed in competition. He thought that the House would be very ill-advised to take any such action as proposed in the motion. Referring to the arguments of members on the cross-benches, the hon. member said that insolence was not argument, and that saying things in the most offensive manner was not calculated to have much effect on the House. Nothing had been said by hon. members on the cross-benches to cause them (hon. members) to change their views. He would vote against the motion.

said that it was particularly surprising to him that the hon. member who had just spoken should have taken the views he did on the matter, because he thought that really, when one considered what the object of that motion was, the hon. member’s memory would have gone back to the past, and he would have seen what their aims and objects were in bringing forward that motion. Continuing, he said that he did not care a button about the “Evening Chronicle” or any other newspaper, but what they would bring before that House was the organised power of money crushing out any competitor. In every case where they had an incident like this, in which the organised money-power showed its claws, the Labour Party desired to make it clear that somebody was being bullied. The money-power had done a great deal of harm in South Africa in the past, and it had intervened to divert the history of South Africa into channels which they deplored. It was responsible for the education of public opinion by the newspaper press in the matter of importing Chinese labour, and by endeavouring to intimidate anyone who did not agree with it, the money-power would try to mould the destiny of the country to suit their own interests and desires. This incident of the “Evening Chronicle” shoved what power it had of working behind the scenes. The suggestion contained in the motion was not a new one, and had been tried in Australia. What security had the country that the News Agency was not subjected to pressure in the nature of the news it sent out? If Government subsidised the News Agency, it could prevent it pandering to the snobocracy. When hon. members saw organised money power working behind the scenes, and endeavouring to crush individuals, let them regard it as demonstrating the growing power of hidden forces which one day they might feel the weight of. What had happened to the “Evening Chronicle” might later on happen to some other paper.

said here they had the “ Evening Chronicle ” doing what was called scab work, it being willing to sell news for 1d. Naturally the newspaper trades union stepped in, and said to it, “You must live up to the living wage.” Let hon. members on the cross-benches lay this lesson to heart, and let them be a little more tender to those gentlemen they called “scabs” or “blacklegs.” He was not going to defend anything that had been done in the matter, but they were asked to judge it on a purely ex parte statement. The House did not know the facts, but the remedy suggested was one of the most ridiculous he had ever heard in his life. “Good Heavens,” exclaimed Mr. Merriman “is the Government never going to stop in its benevolent exertions? It does almost everything for us. Now we are to have our news purveyed for us by the Government. I have never heard a more ridiculous thing in my life.” Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said, when he came into office as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, he stopped subsidising Reuter. Government had nothing to do with supplying of news, and as to the cables, they had wrought infinite mischief to this country. The next thing they would be asked to do was what had been expressed as “tuning the pulpits.” The proposal was a ridiculous one, and the only value of the discussion lay in the fact that it brought home to the hon. member opposite (Mr. Creswell) the very great danger of trying to coerce scabs and blacklegs. (Laughter.)

said he agreed that Government was doing everything for hon. gentlemen opposite in the way of Fencing Bills, Land Acts, and so on—in fact, Government existed to do things for hon. gentlemen who sat on both sides of the House; but, as at present constituted, it did not exist for the benefit of the mass of the people. Government had failed to grasp that the country meant all the people in it, and not a privileged class. The Labour Party held no brief for the “Evening Chronicle,” and had no financial interest in it: the paper had never supported the Labour Party, but the latter stood for freedom of thought. John Stuart Mill had said that there could be no freedom of thought unless there was freedom of speech, and there could be no freedom of speech unless the speeches could be published. That was the point they were trying to get at. The right hon. member for Victoria West showed by his remarks that he detested anything in the nature of curbing competition, even if it led to sweating labour. He believed in free competition, and how he could advocate, or how he refrained from using, his influence in this House to speak and vote against this monopolising of the news of the country, he (Mr. Andrews) could not understand. It was a monopoly.

He would be the last to advocate that the Government of this country should exercise a censorship over the news of this country. They were not asking for that. They were asking that the truth should be published. He though the hon. Minister for Public Works, in the course of his remarks, rather minimised the importance of this matter. He thought he said that a couple of papers in Johannesburg and a couple in Cape Town were the only papers concerned. Well, the information at his disposal gave a list of more than six papers directly concerned in this boycott. The “Cape Times,” “Argus,” “Leader,” “Star,” “Sunday Post,” “Bloemfontein Post,” “Bulawayo Chronicle.” “Salisbury Herald,” “Rand Daily Mail,” the “Sunday Times,” and he presumed that the “Diamond Fields Advetriser” would also be in the list, and certain papers in Port Elizabeth, East London, and Natal. If members did not like the motion as moved, surely if some of the older members were sincere in their detestation of this matter they could alter the motion to a form that would meet with their approval. He hoped if a division was taken many members on the Government side of the House would support them. He did not expect the hon. members on the opposition side of the House would support them. These papers supported them in their policy—if they had a policy. If Government members acquiesced in this iniquity; if they did not support the motion they (the Labour members) would be confirmed in their opinion that although there was a political cleavage between the two parties, there was absolutely no difference between the interests and in the outlooks of the hon. members on one side of the House and hon. members on the other side; that though one paper might be printed in one language and the other in another, the powers controlling the papers were really the same. The great money party in this country banded together to filch every possible grain of wealth they could from the workers of South Africa.

said he wished to speak on that subject, in view of the fact that he had some knowledge of newspaper work and of Socialism. He wished to say nothing as to the treatment which had been received by the “Evening Chronicle.” He had, however, read Socialistic pamphlets, which stated that they should never accept money from another person; but should barter. Now they wanted the Government to give money, money belonging to other persons, in order to help a private newspaper. That was not in accord with Socialistic principles. They had better leave the Socialists alone. They were dangerous people.

lead the definition of “Socialism” as contained in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” 11th edition, and said that all the nonsense that had been thrown about had no recognition there and no recognition by the Labour members in the House. He would have been pleased if the hon. members here had spoken a little more plainly as to what they were driving at. They aimed at a revolution which meant the transfer of power from those who abused it for their own ends, to those who proposed to use it for the common good. He had no intention of dealing with details. He did not believe there were half a dozen members who approved of the action taken by certain papers against the “Evening Chronicle.” He thought the underlying principle was this: to what extent shall private monopoly be allowed to go on menacing public interests, and the sooner they introduced into this House a measure similar to that which they had in Australia grappling with these monopolies, the better. But if they began with one monopoly he hoped the House would be consistent and go a very long way, because there were many private monopolies in this country. He was not afraid of wealth ruining this House; but he was afraid it had a good deal too much to say in it; the only tongue which spoke with much effect was made of gold. They had to ask the Government to take steps to introduce legislation to curtail the power of these private and crushing monopolies. He was sorry to hear the Minister of Public Works speak as he did. He was a far better man than his speech would lead one to believe. He was one of the first men in Natal in the old days to say, “We must curb the excessive competition that is going on in this country.” The Press impartial? The Minister know better. He (Mr. Haggar) wanted to see work done in that House. They were tired to death of schoolboy squabbles. They must say to these monopolies, “Stop; we want the country to go ahead.” The same power that plunged this country into blood and tears a few years ago was trying to plunge the country into something worse to-day. The motion was declared to be negatived.

called for a division, which was accordingly taken.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Madeley, H. W. Sampson, Creswell, Boydell, Haggar, De Beer, De Waal, Mentz. and Andrews) voted in favour of the motion,

Mr. SPEAKER declared the motion negatived.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

On the question that the number of members be nine, as proposed,

moved as an amendment that the number of the committee be ten. His object, he said, was to obtain the inclusion of the hon. member for Commissioner-street, who was a member of the committee last session.

seconded.

The amendment was declared to be negatived.

called for a division.

Mr. SPEAKER put the question that the word “nine,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Ayes—28.

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Phillips, Lionel

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

M. Alexander and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—46.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fischer, Abraham

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Hunter, David

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and D. Wessels, tellers.

The question was accordingly negatived, and the word “ nine” was omitted.

The substitution of the word “ten” was agreed to.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS then moved that Mr. Speaker, Dr. De Jager, Messrs. J. H. Marais, E. N. Grobler, Rockey, Struben, Dr. Macaulay, Mr. Meyler and the mover be members of the committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

thereupon gave notice that he would move that the name of Mr. Sampson be added.

seconded.

This was agreed to.