from R. D’Arcy and 345 others, residents of the district of Fauresmith, praying for the construction of a line of railway from Fauresmith to Koffyfontein and thence across the Bloemfontein—Kimberley line through the districts of Boshof, Hoopstad and Kroonstad to connect, ultimately, with the proposed Kroonstad—Vierfontein line, or for other relief.

from P. Scholtz, a teacher in the Wesleyan School, Stellenbosch, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from J. J. Erasmus and 25 others, inhabitants of the Ward, Elandsriver District, Pretoria, praying for legislation whereby field-cornets may be chosen by the voters of their respective wards, and whereby they may have jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases falling under the Masters and Servants Act.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill.

The report stated that the Committee had heard evidence both for and against the Bill, and had examined the allegations contained in the preamble, but the same had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee.

So that will end the Bill.

That the fourth report and evidence of the Select Committee on Native Affairs of 1912 be laid upon the table.

Agreed to.

stated that the report and evidence were on the table.

then moved: That the report and evidence be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Agreed to.

That on and after Thursday, the 13th inst., the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m., and resume at 8 o’clock p.m., on Thursdays and Mondays.

asked the Prime Minister kindly to inform the House what was the intention of the Government with regard to the Easter recess. (Cheers.) Hon. members must make arrangements, and he believed it was. the intention that the House should adjourn on Thursday and meet again on the following Wednesday.

was understood to say that the present intention, as far as he was aware, was to adjourn after the Thursday sitting until the following Wednesday, but the Whips were consulting in regard to the matter.

The motion was agreed to.

That the Select Committee on the Financial Relations Bill consist of sixteen members.

seconded.

said that before the motion was put, he would like to make a few remarks. He took objection to the proposed committee, although he happened to be a member of the committee himself. The Bill was of the very greatest importance—(hear, hear) —and had occupied a tremendous time in that House, and had been extensively discussed; and, furthermore, it was largely a financial Bill. One would have thought that, under those circumstances, the Minister would have taken good care to appoint the strongest committee he possibly could in that House, and would have taken care to see that all shades of opinion on that Bill would have been represented on that committee. He submitted that that committee was not representative of all shades of opinion. (Hear, hear.) He did not want to mention any names of the members of the committee, but several of them had not spoken at all on the Bill, and the majority of the members of the committee were supporters of the Bill. Of strong critics on the Bill there were, perhaps, one —or two at the outside—on the committee. That was not fair, and, at the least, it was very unfortunate. (Hear, hear.) They should have such a committee as would hammer out a Bill which would satisfy all sections of the House. (Hear, hear.) He would move that they go back on the old suggestion of the Minister, and refer the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee. It was essentially a financial Bill—the very name itself connoted finance. The members of the committee were—

I must point out that the House the other day agreed to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and not to the Public Accounts Committee. That has already been decided upon. (Hear, hear.)

said that he was well aware of that. He could not move that the Bill be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, but he could indicate to the House what it should do.

said that the House had already decided to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

said that what could be done was to negative the motion, and then refer the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee. He went on to say that three members of the Public Accounts Committee had not spoken on the Bill; eleven had spoken—five were strong supporters of the Bill, on the Public Accounts Committee: four were strong critics of the Bill, and there were five members whom he would not presume to classify, so that the Public Accounts Committee was a far more representative committee than the one which was now suggested. They had members who had taken a deep interest in the Bill whom they did not see on the proposed committee. Under the circumstances, he thought it was unfortunate that his hon. friend the Minister had left his first suggestion. He (the Minister) might say that the Public Accounts Committee had too much work, and that it could not do its work properly; but now they would have these two committees working on finance, which were very much weaker than they should be.

who was hardly audible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that to a large extent he agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. J. W. Jagger). It could not be denied that each Province took much interest in that matter and that therefore fair and equal representation should be given to each Province on the Select Committee. On the proposed committee the Transvaal would get five members, the Cape six, Natal three, and the Free State two. He would therefore move that the committee consist of seventeen members, so that additional representation might be given to the Free State.

seconded the amendment.

moved to increase the number to eighteen so that all shades of opinion might be represented.

in seconding the further amendment, said that one would have thought, after the discussions which had taken place in the House, that the very least the Minister of Finance could have done was to make that committee as representative of the various sections as possible. It was a singular thing that if they looked at the personnel of that committee, there was not a single member on it except the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) who had criticised the Bill. If the Minister thought that he was going to facilitate the passage of the Bill like that he was making a very great mistake indeed. (Hear, hear.) During the discussion they had had some very good speeches, one by the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), who showed that he had gone very carefully into the Bill, another by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), and another by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt). They found that all the hon. members who had criticised the Bill had been left off the committee, and those who had been silent or spoken in favour of it had been put on the committee.

said he was much disappointed to see the arbitrary treatment which was being meted out to the Free State. The Free State had been badly treated on other occasions. Apparently the Minister wished to have the support of the Free State members simply because they belonged to the South African Party, but not on questions of principle. (Hear, hear.) He would support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Faure-smith (Mr. Wilcocks), and hoped the Minister would give the matter his serious consideration.

said that it would be well to withdraw that motion, and see whether the representatives of the Orange Free State and Natal could not be equally divided on the committee—three to represent each of those Provinces. As the committee was now proposed, the distribution was not a fair one, and the Bill was a very important one.

said that it had been a most difficult matter to constitute that most important committee satisfactorily. His first idea had been that it was best to send that measure, as being a purely financial one, to the Public Accounts Committee and hon. members would remember that the first notice on the paper was to remit the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee. Well, a number of members on separate sides of the House had represented to him that the Public Accounts Committee was not fully representative of all shades of opinion in that House.

The Public Accounts Committee did not appear to be very popular. The feeling seemed to be that the Public Accounts Committee was composed of financial pundits. (A laugh.) He had no strong objection to increasing the proposed committee beyond even the extraordinary number of 16, but what he was afraid of was this, that if he agreed to 18 the two additional members would be taken from that side of the House and the other side would then want two more. Where was it going to end? (A Voice: “The whole House.”) That, of course, was the other view. He did not think it would be fair on his part to agree to this increase to 18. He was sorry if there were any shade of opinion that was not adequately represented, but this was the third attempt which had been made and the committee had already been swollen to very large dimensions. He believed the better suggestion would have been the other one, to have left the matter entirely in the hands of the Public Accounts Committee.

said he was surprised to hear his hon. friend make his animadversions on the Public Accounts Committee.

No; I did not make any animadversions.

said that the object of the Public Accounts Committee was to check the expenditure as far as possible and come in contact with the officials who were responsible for the spending of the public funds. The Public Accounts Committee, during the sitting of this committee, could do very little work. The Minister of Finance was himself absent from it, and two, certainly, of the most searching inquirers into the public finances were away from it—the hon. member for Maritzburg and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central—without whom the Public Accounts Committee could hardly be said to carry out that searching, small toothcomb investigation, in which those two members were particular experts, which was so very necessary indeed. He understood that this Bill was to be moved to the Public Accounts Committee. That notice appeared on the paper. When it was called upon, nobody at that end of the House could tell what was going on at the other end. He did not think it was treating the House very fairly. This was an important committee. It had now to see how best they might shape the grants for the coming year to the existing Provincial Councils. They had no information before the House in regard to important financial details.

The outcome of this Bill would be to accentuate to the utmost the provincial divisions which already unhappily existed. Every Province would certainly feel, and they would go home and tell their constituents that they had been most unjustly dealt with. They came there to avoid that state of things, and for that purpose it was desired to have a committee that was, as far as possible, impartial. It was not for him to say that the committee put down was not the best possible committee, but it was chosen ad hoc. That was a misfortune, because it was chosen from partisans who would be found not to do their best, but who would do their best for their Provinces, to see how they could screw the most out of the Treasury. He regretted extremely that it was too late now, or he would have liked to suggest that they should select a committee by ballot. He should vote for this amendment that they should enlarge the scope of the committee, which would make it less provincial. He should also vote for an amendment which he hoped would be moved by somebody that this committee be empowered to take evidence and call for papers, because he wanted to ask them what was the value of a report spun out of the brains of 16 or 17 admirably talented gentlemen, who sat down in a room with no papers before them?

said he could not support the amendments before the House, because he thought the number of members proposed was quite large enough. The more members they had on a committee, the less work they got out of it. (Hear, hear) If they had five or seven members on a committee, then good results could be expected, but to increase the number now from 16 to 18 would be ridiculous. As regarded the argument that the committee should be allowed to take evidence, he thought they had quite enough information, and they should now settle down to do some work. Hon. members had stated that the Free State should have more representation. Well, with that he sympathised to a certain extent. He held, however, that the two members proposed were so strong that no additional representation was required. (Laughter.)

said he thought that all who had had any practical experience would agree that as a rule a large committee was a large mistake. There was a feeling abroad that most of their committees were partisan cliques for partisan purposes. They generally found that some members were crowded on to all the committees, and other members were forgotten altogether. He would vote for a small committee.

On the motion being put that the word “16” stand part of the question, it was declared carried.

The motion was agreed to, and the amendments accordingly dropped.

That Messrs. Hull, Schoeman, Becker, Louw, Orr, Brain, Keyter, Jagger, Meyler, Henderson. Duncan, Runciman. Wyndham, Dr. Watkins, Mr. Creswell, and the mover be members of the committee.

Agreed to.

That the Select Committee on Financial Relations Bill have power to take evidence and call for papers.

objected.

gave notice that he would move: “That the Select Committee on the Financial Relations Bill be empowered to take evidence and call for papers.”

“That Mr. Chaplin be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities, and that Mr. Nathan be appointed in his stead.”

The motion was agreed to.

said he would probably not have taken part in the debate at all had it not been for what had been said by the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell). He devoted his speech almost entirely to an attack upon the Union-Castle Company, but he did not make very clear to the House what his accusations were. If he had taken the trouble to inquire in the proper quarter he probably would not have made that speech at all. So far as he could make out, the allegations were to the effect that certain collieries in Natal had formed a combination, and the Union-Castle Company had entered into negotiations with them in regard to bunker coal. He alleged that the Union-Castle Company had committed a breach of section 6 of the Post Office Act, and, therefore, the Government was not entitled to enter into an agreement with that company. If that was what he meant, then he could only say that the hon. member had been entirely misinformed. The real facts of the case were that certain collieries in Natal had agreed to form an association to safeguard their interests and for the purpose of working together. This had been rendered necessary because during the last seven or eight years the Natal collieries had been competing against each other for the shipping trade, with the result that the prices had been cut down to below cost price. During the last year it was decided to bring this to an end, especially as the Government had been worrying them to come to an agreement in regard to the interchange of coal. The collieries then agreed to form this association, and the result had been that they had been able to get a working agreement amongst themselves. In previous years these collieries sent a large amount of coal to Cape Town for bunkering purposes, which was carried by the Union-Castle Company’s colliers. The company then came forward with the proposition that they should buy the coal for the Cape Town trade and take it down and sell it there. This was a good arrangement for the collieries, and it was agreed to. That was the position to-day. There were, however, at least seven collieries in Natal which were not in this association at all. Moreover, Natal coal at Cape Town had to compete against Transvaal coal and coal from overseas, so that there is no chance of a monopoly being created or the price being raised unduly. It was somewhat amusing to hear members of the Labour Party objecting to combination. What was a Trades Union but a combination for increasing the cost of labour, and making it less efficient? (Cheers and laughter.) He had listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the Minister without Portfolio. In regard to what he had said about the contractors having undertaken to purchase for export not less than 50,000 tons per annum, provided that the coal could be purchased at not less than 1s. 6d. per ton less than the price obtaining in July, 1912, he thought the House would appreciate the great advantage of that arrangement when he informed them that there was no possible chance of the contractors getting their coal at 1s. 6d. less than in July, 1912, because at that time the price of coal was as low as it could be. Since then it had risen, and there was little likelihood of it going down to that level again.

The Minister congratulated himself that this clause was going to be the beginning of an export trade in coal, but he (the speaker) would point out that in 1912 about 170,000 tons were exported from the Union. He did not think, therefore, that the Minister could claim that he was initiating a new export trade. He agreed, however, that it had not expanded as rapidly as they could have wished, and up to the present it had been hampered, rather than encouraged, by the Government. Instead of granting facilities such as cheap rates and enough trucks, the Government had stood in the way of the industry. He would like to refer to the question as to whether the small importer was going to fare as well as the big importer. The Minister and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said that the small and the large importer would be on the same footing. He regretted to say that he was dubious about the sincerity of these two gentlemen. (Laughter.) He doubted whether the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would answer him in the affirmative if he asked the question as to whether the small purchaser of £50 or £100 worth of goods was on the same footing as the purchaser of £500 or £1,000 worth. It was all very well in theory, but he doubted whether it would work out satisfactorily when it was practised. The Government were the largest shippers, and they had gained the greatest concessions and obtained rates which were far below even those paid by the largest merchants. He thought that the Government had left the small importers to fight their own battles. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the arrangement between the Government and the company regarding immigrants, he alluded to the rates that were charged immigrants to Australia, and the rates that would be charged those coming to South Africa under the present arrangement. He thought it a pity that the Government had come to such a hard-and-fast arrangement with the company in this respect, and added that, should the Government, in the future, wish to go in largely for immigrants, he thought that they would find that their hands were tied. He was one of those who opposed the shipping clauses in the Post Office Act, and he complimented the Minister on having got out of that difficulty and got rid of the rebate system so quickly. He thought it ungenerous on the part of the Minister and the Government to take all the credit for this agreement to themselves. It took two to make a bargain, and if the shipping company had not been willing to give all these concessions he was afraid that the agreements would not have been before the House that day. The shipping company was in a favourable position at the time of the negotiations. They had all the shipping trade with South Africa in their hands, freights had risen considerably; and they had no competition, therefore they might have pressed for much higher terms. If the negotiations had broken down what would have been the position of South Africa in the circumstances. He thought that the Government was fortunate in having obtained this agreement, especially after rejecting the offer of the old Union-Castle Company, the terms of which, he understood, were, better than the terms of the agreement which they had before them that afternoon. He wished to say one word in conclusion to the favoured section of the community—the landowners, the agriculturists, the planters, and stock-breeders. They were being afforded a great opportunity of developing their produce and creating a big export trade. But if the backbone of the country was weak, then of what use was it to anybody. (Laughter.) This backbone so far had not shown the strength it ought to have done. Now the opportunity had presented itself. He asked them to rise to their opportunities, take advantage of the advantages afforded them, and to do their best to build up a big oversea export trade.

said he wished to congratulate the Minister on what he had achieved. It was undeniably a good contract. He had very little to say on the matter, but only wished to see the question in regard to the importation of cattle from the Continent properly dealt with, and would therefore move the following rider to the resolution: “But is of opinion that with regard to sub-section (c) of clause 50 of the Ocean Mail Contract, the Government should consider the advisability of making representations to His Majesty’s Government urging the insertion of such safeguarding provisions in the regulations made by His Majesty’s Board of Trade as will not unduly restrict the importation to South Africa of pedigree stock from Holland.”

seconded.

said that when the Post Office Bill was under discussion in that House two years ago a small section of hon. members constituted themselves the champions of the shipowners, and not as one would have expected the champions of their constituents or of the public of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) The House heard a great deal then as to what the Government should do—not in the interest of the public of South Africa —but to maintain the large profits the shipowners were making. In view of the extraordinary attitude taken up by that small section of the House, and the extraordinary speeches they had then made, it was only natural to expect that now they would not allow the motion to pass unchallenged, because if they did they would stand convicted of having been found out. (Hear, hear.) But apart from that reason there might’ be another reason why some hon. members objected to the confirmation of the contract and that was that the Minister without Portfolio was a little too confident when he proposed his motion. The critics on the previous occasion were also prophets and their prophecies turned out entirely wrong. The critics stated that if the Government attempted to deal with the rebate system it would fail, and that if the Government attempted to establish an open freight market it would lead to great confusion and would upset the whole shipping arrangement. They showed what a precarious thing the shipping business was especially in the South African trade, asserting that the Union-Castle Co. paid only 5 per cent. and that its shares stood only at par. An extraordinary change had come over those critics. Not a single one had said a word about the 5 per cent. dividend, or to explain why within a few weeks after they made these speeches the shares of the company suddenly jumped to more than three times their face value. He was certain that if those hon. members who had constituted themselves the champions of the shipowners had known then what the rest of the world was allowed to know a few months afterwards—that this 5 per cent. was a mere blind and that millions had been set aside as a reserve—he was certain that those hon. members would not have posed as the champions they did. Had the public, and especially the shippers of South Africa, known what the shipping company’s profits were the agitation for reduced freights would have been much more keen, and he thought the Governments would have taken far more effective steps. He agreed with the Minister when he said that we had to thank Union principally for getting these three agreements. He well remembered the difficulties experienced by the four separate Governments of South Africa prior to Union, when it was impossible to obtain any united policy, and the shipping company took the very fullest advantage of that position. The present agreements being based on the Post Office Act, it followed that the underlying principle was the cancellation of the rebate system. But the Government was not entitled to take full credit for that as it merely carried out the wish of the House. While he would vote for the ratification of the three agreements, he was not prepared to say that he was in ecstacy about them. No doubt the agreements embodied the best terms that could be obtained under the present circumstances, but that did not prevent him from saying that he would have preferred to see some other clauses put in the agreement which would be of still greater benefit to the public. He did not think that many hon. members seriously objected to the mail contract. The subsidy was a reasonable one, especially seeing that the amount of mail matter had considerably increased, and would still further increase.

He thought it would be in the interest of South Africa to have an accelerated service, but they could only get it by paying an increased subsidy, and four years ago they had been confronted with that. Then it would have meant the replacing of four of the smaller ships, which would mean an increased capital expenditure. He was candidly sorry that the Government had not succeeded in their efforts to get gold and ostrich feathers included as mail matter, because if they had been included it would have placed in the hands of the Government an enormous weapon for the purposes of negotiation. It was by no means clear or certain that the shipping companies would not be able to put up their freight rates on gold and ostrich feathers, and if the transport of these had been kept under the control of the Government, no shipping company could have objected to carrying these articles at ordinary postal freights. The industries in question would also have been assured that their freight rates would not be increased for a period of ten years. As to the other freight contracts, he did not propose to go over the same grounds as the Minister and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had covered: but it did seem to him that the advantages obtained by the public of South Africa were very striking. If the mealie rates had been put up to 11s. 6d. or 14s there would have been no opportunity of creating a market of mealies in Europe. The advantages to the fruit industry were also very great, and the same applied to wool and skins. In spite of what had been said about the coal business, there was no doubt that the people of Natal would have an opportunity of seeing their export trade encouraged by the mail line. It had been said that only one section of the community had benefited, but was it true that the importers derived no benefit from that contract? Two years ago nearly all the large importers of South Africa had protested against the rebate system, but was it not an enormous advantage to have obtained a free freight market? They could now send their produce by any kind of ship they pleased, without incurring any penalty. He thought, however, that the Government should have kept their own freight contract free, that was to say, that they should not have bound themselves, for any period of time, to send Government freight by any particular ships. The Government were very large importers of materials for the railways and harbours, and it would have been a better thing if they had been left a perfectly free hand in regard to their goods, which would have enabled them, as opportunity arose, to encourage other shipowners, who did not at present trade with South Africa. In all these matters there must, however, be a certain amount of give and take. He hoped that the Government, when the period of five years had expired, would take that question into reconsideration. (Hear, hear.) As to the criticisms and the scathing remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn), the hon. member had been pathetic and dramatic in his appeals to the Government; that the Government could do and had done nothing. Here, where the Government came forward and laid upon the Table of the House the three deals which the Government had entered into, in pursuance of the authority given by Parliament, instead of welcoming them, the hon. member had still remained querulous, and protested that he would have nothing to do with the agreement. He thought that the hon. member would not be satisfied even if the Government received an inspiration from above. (Laughter.) The hon. member was one of those critics who would object to whatever the Government did, without its first receiving the assent of the hon. member’s side of the House.

said that there was one serious criticism of the agreement which he commended to the attention of the Minister, and was one which had not occupied the attention of the House much during the debate. The hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Henderson), had found many valuable concessions to the people of South Africa in these agreements, but he took what might be called the shipping point of view of it, and he (Sir E. H. Walton) had not been able to find them, or traces of them. The intention of Parliament in abolishing the rebate system was to get a free freight market, but he was not sure whether that agreement did secure to the people of South Africa the free freight market which they had hoped for.

He failed to find any reference to the public. He found no effort made to protect the public in regard to their freight. The shipping companies took the right during the currency of the agreement with the South African merchants to raise the rates of freight from 10 to 15 per cent. They had got in the agreement certain things in return for certain things that they gave, and it was necessary for them to consider what was the value of the concessions they received, and what was the value of the consideration they gave. He estimated the freight on the imports and exports of South Africa roughly at four to five millions a year. Approximately 1s. a ton increase of freight on our imports would mean to this country about £150,000. If the freights to South Africa, therefore, were increased, not 1s. but 2s. 6d. to 3s. 9d. per ton, we should be paying a sum which might be estimated at £400,000. These were necessarily rough figures, because he had not the requisite data on which to found exact calculations. In view of the fact that in all probability we should be called upon to pay an increased freight, which would mean to this country such a large sum of money, he thought they should ask whether the concessions we received from the companies were at all commensurate with what the cost of that increase would be. We were going to get a mealie rate. It was not probable, he believed, after our recent experience, that any large quantity of mealies were going to be shipped from South Africa for some time to come. We got free carriage of stud stock. He hoped the Minister would make a careful estimate of what South Africa would receive from the free carriage of stud stock. We also got a lower produce rate. But we did not get—and he must insist upon bringing this point to the consideration of the Government—we did not get any protection whatever with regard to the freight paid by the general public. The Government made an agreement with regard to the carriage of their own freight. As far as these agreements were concerned, South Africa generally was left absolutely at the mercy of the shipping companies, and he regretted that when these agreements were being entered into there was no stipulation made that the rates of freight then charged should not be increased without the consent of the Government. When they gave a company the mail contract and the Government freight, they gave them an enormous hold upon the country. He regretted that efforts were not made to limit the powers of the shipping companies, at any rate of the mail steamship company, to raise the freight to the general public. The hon. member for Troyeville talked about these freights as a tax on one section of the people. His hon. friend must know that that was pure nonsense. There was no section in this case. The whole of the people would have to bear the burden of any additional freight imposed upon the people of South Africa. He was glad that the Minister had only made this Government freight contract for five years.

He wished to congratulate the Minister upon the way in which he had conducted the negotiations. He regretted that the particular point he had mentioned was not included, but on the whole he thought the Minister had done remarkably well. (Hear, hear.) Sir Edgar went on to quote from a letter received from a commercial friend, who stated that they had, it was perfectly true, freedom in theory, but in point of fact they were impotent. They could not, he said, secure this freedom of freight, because they had put a certain company in such a position and power that no combination of merchants in South Africa would be strong enough to deal with them. Proceeding, the hon. member said he thought the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) was mistaken in saying that the Government rate of freight could be raised. That was fixed for five years. He also touched on the need of amending clause II., remarking that they were not going to get tenders when it was laid down that another company could take up the contracts at the lowest tender price. In concluding, he said we had cut ourselves free from this monopoly, and when we were trying to find our feet under these new circumstances, if we did not get all we wanted, or all we were entitled, to, at any rate we were on the way to it, and he had no doubt the Minister would make the effort he had indicated, and endeavour to secure to us the control of the freights of South Africa to the public, outside the Government freights, and give us at any rate a legitimate voice in the fixing of those freights. (Hear, hear).

said that he had to congratulate the Minister. He thought the Minister had done remarkably well. As far as Port Elizabeth was concerned, they had a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce before they came away, and they seemed to be perfectly well satisfied. He was pleased with the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). There was only one regret that he (Mr. Searle) had, and that was the manner in which his hon. friend handled the old company. He thought the House would agree that the old company had done remarkably well. They could not get away from the fact that in days gone by with the old company things were not so rosy as they were now. As long as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, agreed, he thought it was a perfectly good bargain. (Alaugh.) In the old days no ship went away from South Africa full by about ten per cent. It was the fault of the producers. Comparisons were made, and the matter had been rectified. Coming back to the rate of freight, hon. members hardly realised that they had everything in their own hands In the old days five eighths of a penny would be charged on one day, and on another, when there was only one ship available, the rate would be a penny As regarded the rebate, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, knew that to-day several produce shippers would rather have the old system. The debate had been well thrashed out, and he thought the Minister had made a good bargain, so they could be well satisfied.

wished to add his thanks to the expressions of thanks of other members for what had been achieved by the Minister. Some hon. members had criticised the Minister for getting privileges for only one section of the population. Was it not a fact, however, he asked, that when agriculture prospered the whole country felt the good effects? In these circumstances he could not agree with the arguments which had been used by certain hon. members.

here noted that there was no quorum, and business was suspended until a quorum was obtained.

continued by saying that the people should not expect the Government to do everything for them, but should rely on their own energies. As regarded the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville, he had quite expected him to speak in the way he had done, because they all knew that the hon. member, though not opposed to farming was opposed to the farmers. The remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), however, had greatly surprised him. Last session the hon. member had considered it his duty to support the Government everywhere. Now, however, he seemed to be willing to oppose everything. Could the hon. member not see that what benefited agriculture was of advantage to the whole country? Dealing with the question of importation of cattle from the Continent, the hon. member could not understand how, reasonably speaking, any more could be done. (Hear, hear.) He warned the House against creating false impressions, and urged the necessity of self reliance. People should not always look to the Government to do everything. Speeches which had the effect of creating the impression that the Government could do everything were pernicious, he urged, and should not be made. He would support the motion.

said he did not intend to say much regarding the mail contract and homeward produce arrangement, because it had been agreed that they were satisfactory. He congratulated the farming members on both sides of the House on the satisfactory arrangement which the Government had made on their behalf. He did not envy them, for he did not think that they were the only class that would benefit by this arrangement. Surely, if the farmers improved their stock, it would be better for the food supply of this country. Surely it was going to benefit the whole of the country? He hoped they would take the opportunity of developing the export trade of this country, so that when the mineral wealth shrank they would have something to put in its place. And he congratulated South Africa on the favourable export freight which the Minister had succeeded in gaining. He congratulated the Government on the amount of the subsidy, saying that they were paying no more in spite of the fact that the amount of mail matter had been increased considerably.

He was sorry, however, that no clause had been inserted under which the Government could have had a fifteen days’ service whenever it was desired, because he believed that the quicker service was necessary for the advancement of this country. He considered the Government freight agreement most satisfactory, but he would like to refer to one or two criticisms. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had said that the Government freight would depend upon the amount that the merchants were paying. He (the speaker) would like to point out that the rate was fixed for 90 per cent. of the goods. The Government had agreed that the freight for one-tenth should fluctuate the same as the freight paid by the merchants. But the Government would not pay any more in the end. Owing to the arrangement that had been made, the Government would not pay any more, so that it was really a fixed rate throughout. As one who objected to the rebate system two years ago, he wished to explain the, attitude he took up at that time, and he wished to congratulate the Government on having broken down the rebate system. He had admitted that they might have to pay too much for a uniform rate, he objected to the rebate system, because it did away with competition. He then said, and he repeated it, that an open freight market would not be disadvantageous to small importers. That was the point he wished to make. He knew that it was impossible to have a uniform rate and do away with the rebate tariff. It made but the slightest difference to the small importer whether he paid 10s. or £1 more for freight, and he contended that the smaller importer was not going to be shut out. Where it did affect the small importer was in regard to rough goods, and in that instance, if the bier shipper got cheaper rates, the small man was going to benefit. The small man never imported rough goods himself; he always bought the stuff in this country. If the large shipper was able in the open freight market to get a cheaper freight, not only the small importer but the people of the country would benefit. He did not think that the small shipper would be shut out or ruined by this agreement. It had been said that even now they had not done with the monopoly. He admitted that if South African merchants valued an open freight market so lightly as to sign agreements, they would be in exactly the same position as they were before rebates were abolished. On the other hand, if merchants refused to sign, and the Conference Lines raised their rates to an unfair level, then it would be open for other shipping companies to come in. If the merchant signed away the privileges given them, then they must not come crying to the Government for relief. If the company refused to carry, merchants could make arrangements for themselves. The Union-Castle Co. was not justified under the rebate system of penalising people who shipped by outside lines. That company had charged him 90s. a ton for carrying his goods; but when it took over the Houston contract, the Union-Castle Company carried his freight at 30 per cent. less than it charged other shippers, as he had had a contract with Houston’s.

It would be suicidal of the shipping company to say that it would refuse to carry the goods of those merchants who would not sign the agreement at the usual rate, for the merchants concerned could combine and charter ships themselves, and as they would be able to bring out “bread-and-butter” goods at low freights, they would be enabled to undersell those merchants who had signed the agreement. A great deal had been said about the large price the Royal Mail Co. paid for the shares of the Union-Castle Co. He expected every shipping company to obtain at return on its capital. During the last 25 or 30 years the old Union-Castle, Co. paid only 5 or 6 per cent. per annum; but at the same time it largely reduced the book price of the ships, and piled up such a big reserve that astute business men bought its £10 shares at £32 10s. Was that fair to the shareholders in the old Union-Castle Co., seeing that, if that concern had not written down its assets and piled up its reserves, it might have paid dividends of 15 or 20 per cent. per annum? The present company having paid three times the par value of the old shares, he maintained that the profits earned by the old company would give a fair return even on the enhanced capital of the new company. (Hear, hear.) Speakers had taken it for granted that the Royal Mail Co. had paid £32 10s. for each share in the old Union-Castle Co., but he did not believe it, for it secured a large number at a very much less price. Therefore the new company would not have to earn such large profits as it would if it had paid £32 10s. for each share in the Union-Castle Co. As a small shipper he felt perfectly satisfied with the present arrangement. He did not believe that the Conference Lines would refuse to carry his goods if he did not sign the agreement, but if the Mail Co. did refuse he would expect the Government to have something to say to it. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the new company was here for business, and desired to carry, not half, hut the whole of the freight. It was understood that the interests of small shippers were to be protected and that their cargo was to be carried at the same rate as larger shippers. If a number of merchants refused to sign the contract, and if their stuff was shut out, he for one would go to the Government to take some action. He congratulated the hon. Minister for having abolished the rebate system, but if the merchants closed up the market they had no claim for crying out that they were in the hands of a monopoly, for if they signed they did it with their eyes open, and must take the consequences.

said that from the point of view of some farmers the contract was a very pleasant and agreeable one, but he could not give, approval to this spoon-feeding; it was not good for farmers nor for anybody else. It was hot the poor farmer that imported this well-bred cattle, it was usually the rich farmer; the man who could very well afford to pay for it. Under this agreement it was the poor farmer and others similarly circumstanced who would have to pay for the importation of the rich farmer’s stock. It was only those that could afford to go in for these experiments who would get any advantage out of them. As to the Government starting centres, they might have a repetition of the state of things they experienced through the Government agricultural farm at Potchefstroom which not many months ago was flooding the country with tuberculous cattle; that was one thing that the Government had done for South Africa. The hon. member for Barberton wanted to see an accelerated mail service, but he (Mr. Fawcus) and many others would much rather have seen a really free freight market. It might be called a free freight market under the contract, but it was one under which precious few importers would find themselves in a position to get any benefit from. He would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention that although the company would save another £100,000 a year by the development of the Natal coal industry, there was no reflection of it in the contract before them. The rebate system interfered with the free freight market, and it appeared to him that all their talk about the free freight market was moonshine. The Government had lamentably failed in that matter in the giving away of these Government rates. The Minister had the only blunderbuss, and when the modern Dick Turpin came along he handed over the blunderbuss, and now it was handed over, the hon. Minister said he thought he had got a good price for the blunderbuss; but South Africa had lost the only weapon it had. Now the hon. Minister said they could make the best terms they could with the highwayman; as a matter of fact they had no chance when the Government freights were given away, the free freight market they were supposed to have had ended up in so much moonshine. The hon. member for Kimberley advised them to stand out and not sign the agreement, but in the end the importers would have to give way.

said as one of those who opposed the Post Office Act of 1911, but not, as was suggested, as a champion of the shipping interests, he would congratulate the hon. Minister on his success in abolishing the rebate system, and he would also congratulate him on having arranged satisfactory rates of freight on produce. As to the criticism of the hon. member for Barberton, the company would not have given way unless they had secured this matter of freight; they wanted to safeguard themselves against outside competition, and having got this freight they could then afford to abolish the rebate system. The hon. member for Barberton could not have it both ways. The hon. Minister had signally failed in his contract in his non-success in protecting the small importers. He (Mr. Fawcus) declared himself as an opponent of the Bill. The Minister had abolished rebates Undoubtedly, he had scored a victory theoretically, but it still remained to be seen what the effect would be in practice. He questioned very much whether, although the rebate system had been abolished, there would be much outside competition. However, the merchants had this advantage, that they would no longer be deterred from breaking away from the companies by the fact that a considerable sum was held in suspense by the companies.

said that the hon. member for Barberton had chosen to attack hon. members in that House who were opposed to the Post Office Bill two years ago, but he would remind him that people who live in glass-houses should not throw stones. The hon. member was proceeding to refer to certain actions of the hon. member for Barberton in reference to grants for land and the question of re-valuation of immovable property in the Union, when he spoke in one direction and voted in another.

pointed out that he was travelling away from the subject before the House.

said that he thought he was entitled to say a word in defence of those who had been attacked during this debate by the hon. member for Barberton. Proceeding, he said he thought this contract was capable of great improvement. He submitted that there was not the slightest protection, so far as outward freights were concerned. Whatever benefit the farmer would receive—and he did not say that ultimately the country would not gain some benefit thereby—he submitted that there might have been a maximum rate fixed not only for outward freight, but also for passengers. The farmers had got a benefit, and in time the country would benefit, but that was a long way off. The free carriage which was being given under this contract would have to be paid for in the long run by the consumer. Would this, he asked, cheapen the breakfast table of the majority of the people in this country.

He could not believe that nobody was going to pay for the free carriage of cattle and other things. There was also going to be a great loss on the carriage of mealies. Somebody would have to pay for that. Who? Was it a good thing for the country that this enormous exportation of mealies should go on? The late Treasurer was responsible for it, and he had been lauded in connection with it; but since then no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself had pointed out that it was the greatest fallacy to believe that the export of mealies was a good thing. He pointed out also that it would be a better thing if the mealies were put into the pigs and exported in the form of bacon. While they were exporting mealies the people in the country were starving, and to feed some of them they had to buy back mealies from other countries. And, at the same time, they were suffering from drought, and farmers’ lambs and sheep were dying wholesale. Those things were not touched upon by their farmer friends. He rejoiced that they should have free freights, but the time would come when they would have to stop these doles. He felt satisfied that they had not yet seen the practical side of this contract. The theoretical had been honestly put by the Minister; but let them wait until the agreements had been in operation and when the shoe pinched they would have to pay for it through the nose. (Laughter.) He wondered whether the aid which some hon. members expected the Government to give them would be given, and whether the contract would be then modified. It had been said that the small importer had been protected, and, reading clause 51 by itself, it would appear to be so, but the present lack of opposition to that clause seemed to indicate that the big importer had a good card up his sleeve. Four or five of the big men could easily combine and charter a ship; but the small man could not have that advantage. So he was not protected. Then the rise in the shipping company’s shares made him suspicious. It was a phenomenal rise. The Minister did not tell them why they rose; but perhaps he would do so in his reply, and would also tell them what higher difference there would have to be paid later in respect of certain freights to allow of an increased dividend on £32 10s. as against £10. Well, if this new contract was going to be as favourable as they were given to believe, then the Minister had been negligent in his duties. He should have tabulated a motion expressing the thanks of the House and the people to Sir Owen Philipps, who should have been hailed as the saviour of South Africa, but he feared that Sir Owen would fall under the category of “fortuin zoekers.” He wished this motion had been a Bill; because then, next year, when they found that the shoe did pinch, they could have amended it. Whereas under this motion they would be tied up for ten years. They should not have been rushed in regard to it. In his opinion it could well have been referred to a Select Committee for improvement. He thought that there was still time to save South Africa. In conclusion he said he understood that if negotiations had gone on with the old Union-Castle Company a similar agreement could have been arranged.

said that though many hon. members. had criticised the agreement, he was glad to notice that they congratulated the Government on what it had been able to do. It was gratifying to note that the Government’s endeavours in this direction had been generally approved. The only people who really opposed were hon. members who had opposed the measure two years ago, and who had to get up and say something. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. Walton), had regretted that the Government had not been able to arrange outward freight, and wanted to see such provision made. If that had been done it would not have been an open freight market. Prior to this the Government freight contract had been treated as a separate contract with shipowners at a time when freights were much lower than they were at the present time. It was then considered that it was a very reasonable contract. Were they paying more for Government freight now that it had been given with the mail contract? In fact, in the present contract the Government had secured reductions. He considered that if the price was fair when the contract was made separately and rates were lower, the present was a very reasonable agreement. Let him say that before the Government gave this freight contract for five years they took a great deal of pains to make inquiries into the matter from independent shipowners, and the rates which they quoted were higher. The present contract was for five years, and fixed rates of freight were provided for rolling stock and other heavy railway and telegraph material imported by the Government, comprising about 90 per cent. of the whole of the Government’s imports. These rates were “basis” rates, and were not variable with the rise and fall in merchants’ rates. With regard to the other 10 per cent., the rates might vary according to the merchants’ rates, but even then, it was specially provided in clause 9 that by an arrangement of the Government rates the total amount paid annually for the same quantity and class of goods would be the same as that paid before, so that the Government was amply protected. Such an effort as had been suggested by the hon. member for Port. Elizabeth, Central, was made by the Government. There was another shipowner who was prepared to fix the maximum rates. That would have been an ideal agreement if it had stopped there. But there was a further condition that the Government must guarantee that a certain interest would he earned per annum on the capital invested. He would like to know what would have been said if he had come before the House with such a suggestion. With regard to the criticism that had been advanced in respect to the freight for timber from the Baltic, he would point out that the clause had been copied from the old Cape agreement. Timber from the Baltic was carried mostly by foreign ships and sailing vessels, and although the contractors were given the option of carrying at the lowest tender received, they could well understand that, in many cases, it would not be to the advantage of the contractors to avail themselves of this option. Such an effort as had selves of this option Continuing, Sir David observed, that it had been asserted that the new contract showed no improvement upon the old. Did the five per cent. reduction in freights count for nothing? Did the fact that the merchants had their rebate money in their own possession count for nothing? Did the fact that merchants were able to charter their own ships to-morrow, if they wished, count for nothing? (Hear, hear.)The importers really gained considerably from tin* contract. A great deal had been made of what the Government had given away, but, after all, the Government had not given away such a great deal. He considered that a better agreement could not be made, and that the House had every reason to be satisfied with its terms. It was possible that Government rates might have been brought down further, but in that event the outside importers would have had to make up the deficiency on that contract. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. F. D. P. Chaplin) had referred to the small importers, but they, as a rule, did not import for themselves, but through a large agent, who represented a good many small importers; therefore, the agent would be in the same position as a big importer. (Hear, hear.) As to the freight on gold, all that the Witwatersrand Chamber of Mines was concerned about was that gold should not be treated worse than it was before. Government gave the Chamber that assurance, but not a word was said by the Chamber about the gold rate being high. The idea conveyed to him was that the gold mining industry was quite satisfied. At no time, went on Sir David, was the old company prepared to give up the rebate system.

You broke off negotiations with them.

The hon. member is mistaken. The Government gave the old company every opportunity, but always insisted that the rebate system should be discontinued. The terms with the new company are considerably better than those with the old. Continuing, Sir David stated that apples would be charged at the same rate as pears, and bananas at the same rate as pineapples. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), the Government had already anticipated his wishes, and under those circumstances he would ask the hon. member to withdraw his amendment. The right hon. member for Victoria West had said that they had got into a mess, and congratulated them on the way they had got out of it, All he would say to that, was that if all messes led to equally satisfactory results, he wished we would get into such messes oftener for they would do the country a good deal of good. In reply to the hon. member for Kimberley, he said that if the merchants chose to sign the agreement he could not see how the Government could interfere, that was their own business, but the Government had secured an open market for them, and if they closed it up by signing an agreement it was their own matter. On the other hand, if cargoes were shut out to people who had not signed the agreement then he thought the Government would have something to say about it. No representations had as yet been made by those who had not signed the agreement. He did not think there would be any such thing as shutting out of merchants’ cargo. In conclusion, he said that in a measure of that sort it was impossible to provide against all contingencies, but on the whole he thought it was a fair and reasonable contract, and he had no hesitation in asking the House to ratify it in the form in which it was before the House.

intimated that after the explanation of his hon. friend he would withdraw his amendment.

requested the Minister to repeat his reply in Dutch.

complied.

said it was with great reluctance that he should deviate from any rule of the House, and he wished to assure the hon. Minister that except under very exceptional circumstances he would not have risen after he had replied. It was always the desire of the members on the cross benches to return courtesy for courtesy, and discourtesy for discourtesy. He had been asked earlier in the debate by his colleagues to move an amendment, but had found himself unable to do so, but now that the atmosphere had been cleared by the hon. the Minister he would do so. The amendment he proposed to the House—

pointed out that the attitude of the hon. member was a very unusual one.

It is one that has been forced upon me by unusual circumstances; it is within my rights to take advantage of it, and I shall take that right. Proceeding, he said they were asked solemnly to ratify these contracts. It must have impressed itself not only upon members of that House but upon those who followed the debates in that Parliament, that a very curious position had been taken up by the hon. member for Troyeville, the hon. member for Victoria West, and other hon. members earlier in the debate, for while expressing distrust in the effect, of these contracts, towards the end of their remarks, they informed the House that they were not going to vote against the Bill. He (Mr. Creswell) understood the extraordinary difficulty of their position, and that was one of the grounds of the amendment that he proposed to move. In the contract, in clause 56, it said that this agreement should be binding on both parties from the first day of October 1912, but in the event of the Parliament of the Union to which it had to be submitted for ratification, refusing to do so the contract should be determined. If they now decided that this contract should not be ratified, they would annul one arrangement, and would be left with no amendment whatever. The Government had had eighteen months in which to negotiate, and if they had done their duty as the agents of Parliament that clause which he had read would have read differently. (Hear, hear.) This was merely another instance of the contempt which the Government had for the Parliament of this country. (Hear, hear.) He desired to propose the following amendment: In line 1, to omit “approves of,” and to substitute “while ratifying”; and to add at the end “records its disapproval of these contracts, of the lack of effective opportunity given to this House to withhold ratification, and of the action of the Government in placing South African interests in the hands of a private company without any provision being made for the Government taking the mail service into its own hands at a future date.” The hon. member went on to refer to the question of a coal combine in Natal, and observed that if that were not a combine in the terms of the Post Office Act he failed to understand what a combine was. It was about time they looked into this matter. He failed to see in any one of these contracts a clause which gave the Government the right to inspect the contracts of the Union Castle Co., so that they might know whether they complied with the terms of the Post Office Act or not.

He wanted to point out to the House that in point of fact the effect of the contract was simply to benefit the land-owner. The 18d. reduction in the transportation of mealies simply meant that the mealies would be so much more valuable to the farmers; and the same with the skins. These advantages were being secured to the big landowners in this country who had got land to sell in the future— they would reap the advantage. He wanted to compare the fatherly interest of the Government in their farmer friends with their callous disregard when it came to other matters. They strongly objected to measures the effect of which was simply to raise the value of land. Let them compare the Government’s action now with their action in regard to miners’ phthisis. They were glad to get the Bill off their hands at any price. Compare it with the present Minister of Railways’ attitude in connection with the traders on the Witwatersrand. There was not a bit of care taken to safeguard their interests. And when it was a question of the Contract Labour Bill all sides of the House thought it was a matter to be dismissed with a snap of the fingers. It nauseated one to hear, as they so often did hear, that they on the cross-benches advocated class interests. The class interests were advocated from the Government benches. They had only to look at this contract and the Government’s regard for their land-owning friends and the absolute neglect for the rest of the community. They had taken no care to obtain a reduction of the freight on clothes and food and tools. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, spoke of this open market, and said they were not going to get into the grip of this great combination. When the hon. member clung to that faith it showed he did not pay the least attention to what was going on in the world. Was it not common knowledge that capital combined very quickly and free competition became scarcer and scarcer where it operated? To sum up this contract, it appeared to him to hand over to what was or would be a private monopoly the interests of this country with merely a little sop to the landowners to help to get their adhesion. Sir Owen Philipps, a much more astute man than the Minister without Portfolio, and a much more astute man than the Government, had “had” the Government fairly. He knew very well he was going to get the interest of all these big sums out of the people of this country. Dealing with the clauses of the contract, the hon. member said that clause 17 was one which appeared in most contracts, and for which they on the cross-benches always had the strongest objection. It said that these penalties which the Union-Castle, Co. was under shall not hold at all in case they were delayed owing to a strike, lock-out, or other labour trouble. Why should not the owners be made to fulfil obligations the same as the men? Continuing, he went on to refer to the immigration clause, which he thought amusing. The Government was prepared to bring pedigree stock for nothing, but it was a different matter when it came to people and not things. Then the time of the voyage was the same as it was 20 years ago. Their most important point was that they wanted to know’ why they had to be placed in the hands of a private company. If they were able to run a big railway service, were they not competent to run their own line of mail steamers? And higher rates! Had the boom in the trade of South Africa resulted in higher rates on the railways? Would it not be better for South Africa if, instead of being at the mercy of a private company, they had their own line of mail steamers and their own line of freight carriers? If they could raise £88,000,000 for railways could they not raise the few millions that would be required for a line of mail steamers? If Sir Owen Philipps was able to get this money, surely they were able to do so? Hon. members must remember that they were paying £170,000 a year as a subsidy, and then the Government had contracted to send out all its goods by these steamers. The profit must be considerable.

There was not a single argument to be used against the proposal that the Government should run its own steamers, except the innate conservatism which characterised both sides of the House. The hon. member was proceeding to refer to the gold and diamond mining industries, when

reminded him that the subject under discussion was the mail contract. (Cheers.)

With all respect to you, sir, it is just as germane to the issue as the point raised by the hon. member for Germiston. I insist on pointing out that there is a danger of this combine going to be added to those combines already in existence in this country. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said we already had a shipping combine, a coal combine, a diamond combine, and a land-owners’ combine. Heaven alone knew when we were going to stop with these combines. It was about time that the people of South Africa faced the issues, and recognised that these combinations of capitalists took all the cream and surplus off the effect of their labours—this surplus going to heap up the accumulation of wealth in private hands, instead of being distributed among those who performed the work (Labour cheers.) The mail contract was simply fixing a private monopoly on the country.

If the Government had not time in this session for a Factory Act, or for other things—if their attention was so much diverted with internal squabbles in their own party, they should hand over the Government of the country to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for one year, and then the people of this country would find that between the hon. members on the front benches on the Unionists’ side, and the hon. members on the front benches on the other side, on a question of that sort, there was just the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It would be performing a service to South Africa, because it would be showing that the work of these two political parties was a political farce.

seconded the amendment.

said it was neither his wish nor his intention to take part in that debate, but there were times when personal feelings must be laid aside, and, under existing circumstances, his personal feelings must be laid aside. If he were silent under present circumstances, it would be unfair to the spirit of fair play and to those who had sent him there. He made a protest two years ago, and he felt impelled to join in the protest on this occasion. He would not say it was deliberate, but it seemed to him there was a disposition to crush out everything which originated in the cross-benches, and to silence everything the Labour members had to say. The hon. member for Durban, Berea, spoke feelingly when he spoke about the coal combine in Natal. They had evidence that he spoke as a direct representative of the coal ring in Natal. While under this mail contract they found that large numbers of valuable stock were brought out here for rich men, although this country was languishing for a certain class of immigrants, did they find a single step taken in the right direction to induce the right class of people to come here? Not one. Why should not the Government give facilities to men in this country, who were too poor to pay their passages, to enable their wives and children to come out here and join them? This country was also greatly in need of domestic servants, who could be brought out from the other side. But nothing of a really helpful character was proposed in these contracts.

It was said they should help agriculture; but was it everything. It was said agriculture was the backbone of the country. If that was so, then he could understand their recumbent position, because a sausage had more backbone. The hon. Minister had done a very great thing in regard to one section of the country. To come to clause 18, he took it that if they wanted a decrease of fifteen hours in the service they would have to pay £365, or £19,000 a year. But if the mail was late the company was only fined £2 1s. 8d. an hour up to twelve hours. And they were told that no penalty was to be imposed until after the first twelve hours. So that if the boat was fifteen hours late the company would only have to pay £12 13s., as against the £365 the country would have to pay if the country wanted the boat fifteen hours earlier. Why had poultry been left out of the list of free importations? The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed strangely quiet. This was class legislation—he called it political syndicalism—of the worst possible kind. Hon. members did not know where they were going. He certainly didn’t. (Laughter.) If hon. members could only see a few steps ahead they would pause and go back. This was State Socialism—the same as they had in Prussia. They objected to the agreement on principle, and that principle was that by passing the agreement the House would simply be putting one monopoly on one side in order, possibly, that we might get a more polished one, but no less a real monopoly. The shipping monopoly was being run to pile up huge profits which were going to come out of the pockets of the ground down people of this country. A load would be laid on the backs of those people who were already too heavily burdened. The Labour Party believed in Government monopolies for the public good. No doubt the hon. Minister had acted with the best motives, but the legislation was of the worst kind. It raised a barrier against the people as a whole, it enslaved the people as a whole for the benefit of the few. They should have in its stead something patriotic and expansive, something that would tend to make the country what it ought to be. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was negatived.

declared the motion negatived.

dealt with the penalty clause in regard to delays, and declared that the penalty was altogether unfair. He referred to the provision made for non-enforcement of penalties in case of delays due to lockouts. The power to lock out its employees should not be in the hands of a company, but only a Government. No men should be locked out until the Board of Trade agreed to it. He hoped the word “lockout” would be struck out of the Bill. If the men struck work it was another thing, because they were responsible for the resultant condition of affairs.

If this contract were decided on its merits where would they be? The last clause provided that the agreement should operate from 1912, so that it was already in force. If this agreement was ratified they would be absolutely in the cold. Did the farmers give any promise of responding after all that had been done for them? Though they would be beaten to-day it was a case of striking a rock and the streams would flow.

said that hon. members might cheer ironically. It would have no effect on him. He would go on talking until he had nothing else to say. (Cheers.) He wished to record a protest at the way in which they had been shut out of that debate. (Labour cheers.) The hon. member was proceeding, when

called the hon. member to order, saying that he must keep to the subject before the House.

I wonder if I would have been cheered if you had ruled me out of order. In view of the importance of the arguments of the Labour Party which had not been refuted, he would (proceeded Mr. Madeley) move the adjournment of the House (the time then being seven minutes past seven).

ruled that the motion was out of order.

then appealed to the Prime Minister to agree to an adjournment.

No, I cannot agree to an adjournment.

referred to the coal mining industry in Natal, the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal..

At this point Mr. BOYDELL called attention to the fact that there was not a quorum present.

The ringing of the bell immediately produced the required result.

proceeded with his speech pointing out that in the Transvaal coal could be landed at the pit mouth with white labour much cheaper than in Natal with coolie labour, so that the contention that it was necessary to combine fell to the ground. He argued that no hon. member was entitled to vote upon any matter in which he had a pecuniary interest, and a number of the coal ring representatives of Natal were associated with the Union-Castle Company. He found that the South. African ring representative was Mr. James Henderson, M.L.A. The hon. member had no right to speak or vote on this contract, because he was connected with an allied company. The people in Durban were now paying 1s. a ton more for the same coal than it was sold at in London. The Minister had claimed that he had abolished rebates. He clouded the issue. Rebates in themselves were not inimical to this country, but it was the power that any particular individual or combination of individuals obtained by means of rebates that was the objectionable feature. The danger lay in the power the company employing rebates could exert over shippers. Two years ago the hon. Minister made a great point of that, saying that the effect of rebates was to create monopolies. Well, he had succeeded in abolishing rebates, but had only strengthened the monopoly. Several years ago the Houston Line entered the lists in an attempt to break the ring formed by the Union-Castle Company. The Houston Line gave no rebates, and wanted to give free competition in freights. The result of the encounter was that the Houston Line was beaten to its knees, and that without the aid of Government freights which they had now. In ten years’ time they would have such a monopoly in South Africa that they would not know what to do. Did they think that the Union-Castle-Company was going to be satisfied with the Government freight and the £171,000 mail subsidy. He argued that no hon. member was entitled to vote upon any matter in which he had a pecuniary interest, and that an hon. member should be deemed to have a pecuniary interest through any partnership in which he was a director or in any office in which he held an appointment. The hon. member for Durban (Mr. Henderson) was a representative of the Coal Ring, and as such was not entitled to speak or to vote on the question now before the House.

Sir Owen Philipps already had his plans laid to beat out any possible future competition to get South Africa by the throat. It was ridiculous to talk of small importers chartering ships, for Sir Owen Philipps and his ring would have a monopoly of southern shipping. How the House could listen to such twaddle as that which had been uttered by some hon. members beat him entirely. A great point was made of the fact that mealies would be carried at 20s. a ton. Who profited by that? Did the small farmer benefit? No. The big landowner and the rich farmer. As a matter of fact, we were exporting food which was required in this country in order to put money into the pockets of a favoured few. For the Minister to talk in the fashion he had was not only ridiculous but criminal. The idea of a State-owned line had been condemned on wholly insufficient grounds—that such enterprises had always proved disastrous. What had been the effect of the private ownership of railways in Great Britain? An unnecessary multiplication of trains, and thus increased working costs. The removal of those wasteful conditions would be the result of the State running the railways in England. Would any member of that House, whether a private owner or a monopolist, agree to the removal of State control of the railways in this country? (An HON. MEMBER: No.) Of course not; anywhere in the world, where the railways were State-controlled, the people would rise up against any proposal to remove that control. Would any member propose they should hand over their telegraphs or their telephones? Certainly not; they were rather agitating for the transfer of the cables to State control. To return to the contract, the question was: were they willing or not to hang a rope round their necks. They on the cross-benches were the South African patriots in that House, and they would not agree to hang a rope round their necks.

Perhaps you don’t deserve it.

said they were failing in their duty if they did not support the contention that they should buy their own ships, and not allow themselves to be throttled by this company. It would cost four or five millions, but it was a simple matter for this country to borrow the money.

After another interruption owing to want of a quorum,

The hon. member went on to say that there would be no leakages, such as always occurred under private management. There would be a condition of clean financial administration They could pay interest on the capital outlay year by year out of the mail subsidy, and in a few years they would have their own fleet, free of debt. It had been stated that the Union-Castle Co. had paid 5 or 6 per cent. annually, and that they had accumulated reserves of between two and three millions. At the same time, there was this circumstance that the eight, nine or ten new ships that had been built of recent years had been paid for out of profits. One of the great advantages of a State-owned line of steamers was that specially encouraging facilities could be offered to immigrants. The fact was (declared Mr. Madeley) that the whole of the policy of the Government, supported by the policy of the Opposition, was in the direction, not of attracting white men and women into this country, but driving them out, with the object of installing niggers in their places. In a few years the people of this country would see the effect of this iniquitous contract, about which the Minister without Portfolio preened himself so much. The net result would be a great increase to the number of Labour members in that House. Regarding the penalty clause, the hon. member said he would explain what a lockout was. Supposing Sir Owen Philipps raised the freights to South Africa and had screwed all he could out of the people of South Africa and he still wanted more profits, he would reduce the rate of pay to his men. If the men objected. Sir Owen Philipps could kick them out and under this contract he would have the support of the Union Government in doing so. In effete old England they recognised that the workmen had their rights as well as their disabilities, and surely a young country could begin where the older country left off.

The hon. member then read the clause dealing with the carrying of servants of the Union Government by the vessels of the Union-Castle Co., and said that it was a shame that the artificers and private soldiers and sailors in the employ of the Union should only be provided with shelter from sun and rain. The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for allowing that. Why should not they have cabins? Their womenfolk were only to have bunks in the ’tween decks. The hon. member proceeded to dilate on bunks and the interest of the House.

I must draw the hon. member’s attention to rule 82. If he persists in his irrelevant remarks I shall have to get him to resume his seat.

said he was referring to an iniquitous provision in sub-section C of the contract under which men and women and their children were to be placed in bunks.

Continuing, the hon. member said that this sub-section (c) should be dropped, and added that the Minister had come down to that House and presented a pistol at their heads. Did the Minister ever approach any other shipping company? Were there no other companies to whom he might apply? He (the speaker) said that the Minister saw Sir Owen Philipps—and Sir Owen Philipps alone—and therefore had failed in his duty. Even if they refused to ratify the contract and the Union-Castle ships left this part of the world—that was the statement—there would only be a slight irregularity in the mail service for a certain period. Were they afraid? If the Government were afraid of tackling the question of building their own line of ships, then things were in a bad state. If they were afraid, then they should go to the Governor-General and ask him to dissolve Parliament. They would have to ratify the contract, but they did not do so with their hearts. They would ratify the contract because they were compelled to. Bargain, indeed! Why, Sir Owen Philipps threw everything at the Minister! What a humiliating experience for the representative of a great State. It was admitted that the Union-Castle Company of the past had made something out of this country, and it was certain that the Union-Castle Company of the present and the future intended to get something out of the country. Couldn’t they—as the State —build their own ships, make the profit, and do with it what they willed? They could then bring immigrants into this country free, and make more profit. Then they could reduce freights, and still make a profit. Why, it was like a snowball that grew and grew and grew. But members should look further. If they had their own fleet they could fulfil their obligations to the British people without extra cost to this country. They could take over the Cunard specification and build armed mail boats that could be converted into cruisers for the protection of trade on the high seas. We should fill our obligation in that way. Although not giving ships, we should be rendering it absolutely unnecessary for the British Navy to detach cruisers in order to protect the food routes. Such ships as he had suggested would be able to protect themselves against any but the strongest armed ships. We could contribute food also to Great Britain, so that in two ways they would be relieving the British taxpayer. The amendment was the outcome of the concentration of great minds. (Satirical cheers.) They were going to divide on the question; and members would have to declare for or against a State-owned line of steamers.

next rose, and quoted from the 1912 Hansard a speech made by the hon. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in regard to the mail contract, saying that as it was the people of South Africa who were called upon to pay, they surely should have the right and a voice as to the facilities to be afforded and the charges therefor. There was applause when the hon. Minister gave utterance to that remark, that was exactly the feeling of the members on the cross benches. That was the position they had taken up on this occasion. They were there because they believed that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jeppe was one worthy of the consideration not only of the hon. members of that House but of all the people of South Africa. They were waiting to see what hon. members on both sides of the House had to say on the amendment, but there seemed to be disinclination amongst them. During the progress of the discussion they had discovered that an improvement could be made, and therefore he proposed the following amendment to the House, to insert in Mr. Creswell’s amendment, after the words “disapproval of” the words “the action of the Government in negotiating,” in order to test the feeling of this House once more.

There were cries of “Order,” “Order,” as the Speaker directed the hon. member to address himself to the Chair.

proceeding, said he thought he held the floor, and so long as Mr. Speaker was in the chair he was sure he could rule the House to the satisfaction of the hon. members. He would like to draw attention, he added, and to emphasise the point that had been made by the hon. member for Jeppe, it was with regard to clause 17 of the contract, and he was not surprised to see it inserted. There was a penalty of £125 for the first complete period of 12 hours, and thereafter at the rate of £6 5s. for every successive hour should be incurred by the contractors on each occasion that they failed to provide a ship in accordance with the agreement. The point he wanted to show was that no such penalty should be enforced against contractors if it could be shown to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General that the delay was not due to causes over which the directors had no control. Referring to the “strike” clause he said it had been carefully drafted in the interests of one class. The whole contract had been drafted in the interests only of the land owning class. The Government deliberately took sides with the employer when it included lock-outs in the clause, and gave the employer its support. He remembered at the time of the printer’s strike in Cape Town the Government helped the employers, and gave them facilities to break the strike of men who were attempting to improve their conditions of labour. There were such things as sympathetic lock-outs, when employers not really concerned in the dispute, locked their men out in sympathy with the employers involved. So a sympathetic lock-out might be ordered by the Union-Castle Company because of some dispute thousands of miles away, such were the ramifications of modern industries. He would ask the House if there was not something to be said for the claims of himself and his colleagues. He claimed they might have been consulted in the matter. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the amendment to the proposed amendment.

said that in regard to the motion, some time before they had moved the adjournment of the House, and they had not done so to obstruct business. During the last three hours it had become apparent that they could not discuss this matter properly. It was clear to them that there was a conspiracy of silence on the part of the hon. members on both sides of the House, and he called the attention of the House and the country to the refusal of those hon. members to discuss it. (Laughter.) They talked about a strong Opposition. Where was it? If it was a strong Opposition they would support the motion for the adjournment of the House. Why was it hon. members of the Opposition would not support this vote of censure on the Government? Ye gods! An Opposition! They would not support because they knew that if a vote of censure was carried it meant an appeal to the country, and that was the last thing they wanted, because they knew what would happen. The action of the Government merited the fullest discussion because it reduced Parliamentary control to a farce.

said that the hon. member must keep to the point.

I am— (Cries of “ Order.”)

The hon. member is discussing the whole matter over again.

I am putting the reasons why this debate should be adjourned.

made an inaudible remark.

I don’t want to hear any more of that pseudo cosmopolitan financier patriotic gabble.

said that if the hon. member did not keep to the point he would have to ask him to resume his seat.

With you in the chair, sir, I would be very sorry to transgress the rule. In conclusion, the hon. member said they wanted the debate adjourned because there were important motions to be discussed.

seconded the motion to adjourn the debate.

The question was put, and the Deputy Speaker declared the “ Noes ” had it.

called for a division, As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of the motion,

declared the motion negatived.

Where’s the alliance?

continued the debate, and addressed himself to the clause dealing with a lock-out.

He should say that the Union-Castle Company must have laughed when it was stipulated that immigrants were to be carried at fares reduced to the extent of 20 per cent. The clause as to the small shippers was another instance of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. He saw no protection for the small shipper in this clause. He could not even see any protection for the big shipper in the clause as it was presented. Another objection that be had to the agreement was that it was tantamount to holding a pistol at the head of Parliament. After the agreement had been in operation for six months, the House were asked to ratify it. As to the homeward produce rates, he thought it would be well if those who were engaged in production, before they sought to build up an export trade, tried to supply the market in this country. Proceeding, he said that Australia had a right to call itself an exporting country. In this country they should learn to supply their own needs. The home market was the best. He believed the hon. Minister would have done better if he had paid more attention to that matter than to those people well supplied with the world’s goods.

regretted he could not accept the amendment. In the first place, they could not have an alternative contract, and in the second place, the most thought of contract was the Government freight contract, which was for only half the period of the other contract. Regarding the mail contract, though the subsidy was £170,000 the Union Government would only really pay over £40,000. When the matter was negotiated, freights were going up, tonnage was scarce, shipbuilding was going up considerably, and, taking into consideration all the circumstances, he did not think the House could do better than approve of the contracts. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw, and would agree to the ratification of the agreement.

Are you prepared to consider State ships?

They will do anything you want.

The Government has obtained the right to extend the freight contract for ten years, if necessary.

The first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe was negatived.

called for a division.

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

declared the amendment negatived.

The second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell and the amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews accordingly dropped.

The original motion was then agreed to.

moved as an unopposed motion that a message be transmitted to the Senate conveying the resolution to that House for its concurrence.

The motion was agreed to.

said that, in reply to the question asked earlier in the day by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, he would say that the House would adjourn at the end of the evening sitting on March 20 until March 27.