From Sir George Turner, M.D., of Colyton, Devonshire, who, after devoting nearly seven years in the Pretoria Leper Asylum to the study of leprosy, became an anaesthetic leper, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

From F. Anderson and 89 others, inhabitants of Uitenhage, praying for legislation providing for the direct popular veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

From Edward Rooth, on behalf of the Transvalia Land Exploration and Mining Company, Limited, praying that the House may afford the said company means, by inquiry, of establishing its claim to certain prospecting and other rights in the district of Marico.

From M. Abbott and others, inhabitants of the Liesbeek electoral division, praying for legislation providing for the direct popular veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

From N. J. Lerhoto, of De Aar, a teacher under the Education Department, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

From W. E. Dawes, formerly warder of the Cape Town gaol, who after having served for over 15 years in the said gaol, was retired in 1911 on the ground that he was medically unfit, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

brought up the first and second reports of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. He said that the first report dealt with the scale for the officers of this House and the joint establishment. He understood that this matter would be referred to the House when it went into Committee of Supply on the Estimates. The second report dealt with House matters, and he would lay it on the Table. If within a week no exception were taken to it, it would, in accordance with the usual practice, be adopted.

The first report was as follows:

Your Committee, having considered the report (with annexures) on the House of Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Establishments referred to it, begs to recommend that the following scales of salaries be fixed for the undermentioned officers and messengers of the House of Assembly staff, to operate from the 1st April, 1913, as indicated in the last column:

Clerk-Assistant, D. H. Visser, salary £650; scale recommended, £700 by £30 to £1,000; for 1913-’14, at £700.

Sergeant-at-Arms, T. L. de Havilland, salary £450; scale recommended, £500 by £50 to £600; for 1913-’14, at £500.

Translator, C. G. Murray, salary £450; scale recommended, £450 by £25 to £600; for 1913-’14, at £475.

Assistant Translator, J. H. van Zuylen, salary £400; scale recommended, £400 by £25 to £500; for 1913-’14, at £425.

Chief Committee Clerk, S. S. Rumble, salary £400; scale recommended, £400 by £25 to £550; for 1913-’14, at £425.

Assistant Committee Clerk, J. B. Rabie, salary £350; scale recommended, £350 by £20 to £450; for 1913-’14, £370.

Assistant Committee Clerk, W. A. Elias, salary £300; scale recommended, £300 by £20 to £450; for 1913-’14, at £320.

Clerk of Papers, R. Kilpin, salary £250; scale recommended, £300 by £20 to £400; for 1913-’14, at £300.

Chief Messenger, G. T. Pullen, salary £180; scale recommended, £180 by £12 to £240; for 1913-’14, at £192.

Assistant Chief Messenger, T. Oakes, salary £145; scale recommended, £145 by £10 to £175; for 1913-’14, at £155.

Assistant Chief Messenger, J. Smuts, salary £100; scale recommended, £120 by £5 to £135; for 1913-’14, at £120.

Assistant Chief Messenger, C. Pietersen, salary £120; scale recommended, £120 by £5 to £135; for 1913-’14, at £125.

Storeman, S. J. Wiid, salary £120; scale recommended, £120 by £5 to £135; for 1913-’14, at £125.

Your Committee also recommends that a third assistant committee clerk be appointed with an annual salary on a scale of £180, by increments of £20 per annum, to £260, and that the selection of the officer, as well as the fixing of the necessary probationary period, be left in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

Your Committee, having conferred with a Committee of the Senate, further recommends that the following scales of salaries and rates of wages be fixed for the undermentioned officers and employees of the joint Parliamentary staff, to operate from the 1st April, 1913, as indicated in the last column:

Assistant Librarian, J. F. Zahn, salary £250; scale recommended, £250 by £20 to £350; for 1913-’14, at £270.

Assistant Caretaker, A. Kellaway, salary 7s. 6d. p.d. (£137 p.a.); scale recommended,

£150 by £10 to £200; for 1913-’14, at £150, uniform and boots.

Messenger, H. J. Tomlinson, salary £78; scale recommended, £96 by £5 to £121; for 1913-’14, £96, uniform and boots.

Cleaners, three at 6s. 7d. p.d., six at 6s. p.d.; scale recommended, all at 7s. 6d. p.d.; for 1913-’14, 7s. 6d. p.d., uniforms and boots.

The second report was as follows:

Your Committee has to report that it has considered the letter referred to it on the subject of the presentation of a lithographic copy of a picture by Mr. Henry Lea, of Brereton, representing the fight at Vecht Lager, Natal, in 1838, and recommends that the same be accepted.

Your Committee has also conferred with a Committee of the Senate on the subject of the contract and papers relating to the maintenance and upkeep of the Parliamentary gardens and grounds, and recommends that the contract entered into be approved, and that the Clerks of the Senate and House of Assembly be authorised, after the expiration of the existing contract, to enter into a further contract on the same conditions for a period of two years.

Your Committee had under consideration a proposal by the Controller and Auditor-General to transfer the salaries of the caretaker, assistant caretaker, and cleaners to the Public Works Department vote, but your Committee, after conferring with a Committee of the Senate, is unable to concur in this proposal, and recommends that the salaries should continue to figure on the estimates for the Joint Parliamentary Establishment.

Your Committee also conferred with a Committee of the Senate in regard to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts of 1911 that the caretaker of the Houses of Parliament should be provided with quarters in the Parliamentary buildings. After giving the matter careful consideration, your Committee recommends that the present arrangements in regard to the housing of the caretaker be adhered to.

said that, failing any objection by 3rd April, the report would be considered as adopted.

Return of special warrants issued by Governor-General, 25th February to 25th March, 1913.

Subsistence and Transport Regulations: Judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa.

on behalf of the Minister of Native Affairs, laid on the Table a return containing information asked for by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) relative to lands in the Transvaal held by natives.

The papers were referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Report of Native Affairs Department for 1911.

said that members had not yet received the report of the Select Committee on the Financial Relations Bill, although he saw that a motion to go into committee on the Bill was set down as the First Order for to-morrow.

said that ample time would be given to hon. members to read the report before the Order was taken.

Before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, I should like to refer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) on the 13th inst., in regard to clause 18 of the University of South Africa Bill. The three points put to me by the hon. member are set out on page 371 of the Votes and Proceedings, and are as follows: (1) Whether clause 18 of the University of South Africa Bill, providing that “the University shall as far as practicable make provision to meet the choice of candidates to be instructed or examined in any subject through the medium of either official language of the Union ” is an amendment of section 137 of the South Africa Act; (2) whether it was competent for this House sitting alone to read a Bill containing this clause a first time; and (3) whether the Order for the second reading should not be discharged in order to enable Parliament to take the course prescribed by section 152 of the South Africa Act, or alternatively to bring up a Bill to which section 152 does not apply.

With regard to questions (2) and (3), I am of opinion, even assuming clause 18 of the Bill to be in conflict with section 137 of the South Africa Act, that its inclusion in the Bill as introduced does not nullify the first reading, or constitute a sufficient reason for discharging the Order for the second reading. Clause 18 is only a detail in the Bill, and does not affect the principle thereof. It is, therefore, competent for the House to proceed with the Bill. Should, however, clause 18 be reached eventually, the further points involved in the first and third questions of the hon. member can, if necessary, again be raised.

moved the third reading of the Appropriation (Part) Bill.

said that before the Bill was read a third time he wished to ask the Minister of Mines when the report which he promised on February 15, respecting Miners’ Phthisis, would be in the hands of hon. members? And when it is laid before the House whether the Government intends bringing in an Amending Bill this session? It was a long time from the middle of February to the end of March, and the Government had not been so busy but that, he thought, time might have been found to deal with the question. He further wanted to call the attention of the Government, particularly the Minister of Railways and Harbours, to a discussion which took place the other session relative to the mortality among tropical natives. The Minister on that occasion said it was not until the conscience of the country had been awakened that the mortality would be stopped, and unless some great improvements were made on certain mines they would not be allowed to recruit further labour from tropical areas. He (Mr. Creswell) had asked for returns of the death-rate of the different mines. He found that the death-rate varied from 66 to 96. In view of this he wanted to ask if such speeches as those made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours and other hon. members were merely so many pious asseverations, or whether they were intended to be put into effect. It was quite time the Minister put a stop to this. He (Mr. Creswell) found that five years ago the death-rate was 61 per thousand, the following year 63, the next 79. Then came the lower rate of 46 per thousand. That was the year when the Minister spoke in such strong terms. This year he believed it had gone up to the original figure of 55 per thousand. Taking the average mortality amongst South African natives, it meant that they were sacrificing 900 or a 1,000 lives, in addition to the ordinary mortality, every year. In the interests of common humanity this wanted stopping.

said the hon. member was quite right in referring to the attitude taken up by him (the Minister) last year, when Minister of Native Affairs. What he then said he still adhered to, and he had constantly endeavoured to carry out such methods as would ensure a decrease in the mortality amongst tropical natives on the mines. There had been a satisfactory improvement shown. It was impossible to deny that the figures for 1912 showed a very satisfactory improvement, and the Government had noticed with appreciation the attempts which had honestly been made by the Rand Mines in this direction. Prior to 1912 the death-rate, taking the whole of the tropical natives, ranged from 69, 62, 65, 75, down to 64 in 1911. There were extreme high figures in some mines, one exceeding 200 deaths per thousand. In 1911 the figures showed such results as 81 for March, 71 for April, May 95, June 74, July 77. In 1912 the death-rate dropped from 64 to 47 per thousand. It was therefore impossible to avoid the conclusion that there had been a material improvement.

What was the death-rate last month?

I am speaking of 1912. The figures for the last four months of that year were as follows: 34, 41, 38, and 47 per thousand. For the month of January this year the rate was 44 per thousand, but the average for February is 55, which certainly showed an increase, but this had been due to an outbreak of pneumonia. These figures all showed a great improvement, and the state of affairs was not such as to force the Government to carry out the attitude mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe.

said he would make enquiries with regard to the report asked for by the hon. member for Jeppe, and if it could not be laid on the Table in a day or two he would let him know when it would be available.

said the answer would lead anyone to suppose that there was likely to be an improvement. It was only when the agitation took place that the group of mines concerned with the charge took precautions, but afterwards matters relapsed into their former condition. In October, 1912, the death rate jumped up to 57.2, as opposed to 34.5 for the previous month. The next month it was 53.7, and the following month 57.4. In January it was 44.6, and in February 66.1. The average was 55.4 for the period which he had mentioned. He thought it was time that the House became conscience-stricken. It was time that the House awoke to the fact that these natives were being murdered. He asked the hon. member for Tembuland to go along the Reef and witness what was going out, and see the number of natives under the age of 16 that were working on the mines. That hon. member took everything that was told him as gospel. It was not possible for natives from that portion of Africa, to which reference was being made, to live under the conditions that prevailed. He considered the reply of the Minister was unsatisfactory, and he thought that the House should put a stop to the importation of these natives.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said he hoped that he would not be accused of provincialism in bringing forward the matter of the railway workshops at Bloemfontein. He found that £345,000 was being spent at Salt River, £108,000 at East London, £300,000 at Pretoria and Durban, while only £20,000 was being spent at Bloemfontein. He pointed out that the General Manager of Railways made a definite promise that £75,000 would be placed on the Estimates, but this had not been done. It was said that work could not be given to Bloemfontein because the workshops were not commodious enough, and yet the Government would not spend any money on those shops. He said that so long as the Railway Department persisted in this policy of distinction so long would provincialism be perpetuated. He pointed out that other Provinces had done extraordinarily well out of the Railway Administration, the Cape Peninsula in particular. He thought that the Free State members had been too complaisant. He thought that they should get up and demand their rights. If they did so he was sure they would get something—-like the other Provinces—to keep them quiet. (Laughter.)

said that he, too, would like to bring one or two matters to the notice of the Minister. When he asked the Minister a question the other day concerning the state of crossings, he was told that they were not dangerous. He would draw the Minister’s attention to a letter that had appeared in the “Transkeian Gazette,” and said he thought that the Minister had been incorrectly informed on the point. Then he would also draw the Minister’s attention to the chaotic state of affairs that existed at Butterworth station, and quoted from the “Transkeian Gazette” to show that the Government should take some action with regard to the condition of things. Goods took ten days or more to reach Butterworth from East London, and they often laid for days and weeks in the goods shed, despite constant applications for delivery. Valuable goods lay exposed to the weather and also to thieves. Owing to the lack of supervision pilfering went on, and because of the difficulties in the way of railway transport merchants were beginning to prefer the ox-wagon. Mr. Schreiner proceeded to refer to the character of the literature sold on the railway bookstalls—literature which a high-class bookseller would not stock. On one of these stalls he had seen a book of engravings which were not conducive to the morality of the people. Certain things which might be allowed in England with its homogeneous population should not be allowed in South Africa with its mixed population. He referred to the sale of representations of nude white females from the salons of Paris, Then the sale of these things was not fair to the attendants, who were mostly young girls.

said the Railway Department had offered to give a special rate for the carriage of fruit from Natal on the condition that the centres to which the offer was made sent all their fruit by rail. That offer had called forth a good deal of comment, seeing that the Government had made it its policy to do away with a similar state of things so far as shipping freights were concerned. (Mr. MERRIMAN: Hear, hear.) Now the Railway Department was attempting exactly the same policy that the Minister without Portfolio had put an end to so far as shipping was concerned. What right had the Railway Department to differentiate in this matter? To say the least of it, such methods brought the Government into contempt. It was not fair to the shipping companies; why should they not be allowed to compete for the trade?

said a few days ago he asked the Minister of Railways why the members of the lower paid railway clerical staff were still being refused their ordinary increments on the ground that they must wait until the regrading had been completed. The Minister had replied that no increments had been stopped on that account. However, from information he (Mr. Boydell) had received, the Minister’s reply was not in accordance with facts. He was not blaming the Minister, although he was responsible for a reply, but he (Mr. Boydell) was receiving letters telling him that the Minister’s reply was nothing less than untrue. Proceeding, Mr. Boydell said he wished to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein with regard to the state of the Bloemfontein railway workshops. These places were in a disgraceful condition.

said that he would go into the points raised by the hon. members for Durban, Greyville, and Bloemfontein. The hon. member for Tembuland had not given notice of his remarks, and so he (Mr. Burton) would have to ascertain what the position was. But he was happy to be able to give the hon. member the assurance that the publications from Paris to which he had referred would be dealt with. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had attacked the Government because of the railway rates on fruit, and had compared the action of the Government in this matter with its attitude in putting an end to the shipping rebate system. But there was a difference—in the one case the monopoly existed for the benefit of the shipping companies, but in the other it was for the benefit of the people of South Africa— (cries of “Oh,” and laughter)—altbough he did not admit that there was a monopoly in the latter case, but if there were a monopoly it was on behalf of the fruit-producing industry of the country. When the shipping companies quoted a certain freight for fruit and other articles, say, from Durban to Cape Town, the Railway Department made certain offers. The Railway Department, to get the business, quoted rates which were intended to compete with those offered by the shipping companies, but the Railway Department had not yet undercut them.

On fruit from Durban, where the shipping rate was a certain amount higher than the railway rate, they made a stipulation with those to whom they quoted this special rate that the article on which the rate was so reduced should be sent by rail, i.e., when the producer got his cheap rate he should send by rail, but not all his stuff. There was a great difference between the practice of the shipping companies and the railway. The arrangement of the shipping companies was that they should send the whole of their business by the shipping line. What the railways said was that if they were to give them a special rate for their fruit, that produce should be sent by rail. He could not see anything vicious about it. When a competitive rate was introduced for the carriage of wine and brandy to Port Elizabeth and East London, the freight immediately came down, and then the wine and brandy merchants, as soon as they got a lower rate, stopped sending their stuff by rail and proceeded to send by sea. The result was that the competitive rate on these articles to Port Elizabeth and East London was removed, with the consequence, of course, that the shipping rates on these articles went up again. He did not want to stand by a hard and fast condition that the purchaser should send the whole of the particular article by rail, because he did not say that he regarded it entirely as a wholesome principle, but unless they made the stipulation they were at the mercy of the shipping companies. Experience had shown that unless they made a stipulation of this sort they did not achieve the object in view. It did not seem to be anything in the nature of a monopoly such as was represented.

said he was glad to see that conviction was dawning on his hon. friend. (A laugh.) He complained about this in regard to the Post Office Act as an infringement of trade. Where they were going to draw a distinction between this and the Post Office Act, he must say it required a trained lawyer. He was not a trained lawyer. The Government was always doing this. The Government had done it in reference to the ox-wagon traffic.

Your own Government.

No; I am not a supporter of the Post Office Act, while my hon. friend is.

said he brought this matter of the special fruit rate to the notice of the House some time ago, but apparently very little heed was then paid to it. The Minister had said he was not cutting prices. He was quoting 50s. for 2,000 lb., and the rate of the shipping companies was 48s. to 50s., but he had not mentioned that that rate of 50s. included delivery and collection in the cartage area. The Government had made it a condition that the special rate would only be allowed to persons who gave a written undertaking to send the whole of their throughout traffic by the all-rail route. If that were not an attempt to create a monopoly in the carriage of fruit from Durban to Cape Town, he did not know what was. The Government were going out of their way to interfere with private enterprise all round. They were doing the same thing in regard to the coal trade. He was told that they actually proposed to carry coal from the Transvaal to Cape Town at 12s. 6d. per ton, at the instigation of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and other members. They were doing this bunkering business at the Cape Town Docks at a loss.

No.

contended that it was unfair for the Government to quote rates which interfered with private enterprise, especially when those rates meant carrying goods at a loss to the country generally.

said he hoped the Minister would not pay too much attention to what the hon. member who had just spoken had said, in view of the attitude he had taken up with regard to the Natal coal combine.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

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

moved the second reading of the Additional Appropriation (1912-1913) Bill.

wanted to know if the £54,000 in respect of wineries had been referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and if so, when they would be likely to get a report? He would also like to ask the Minister of Finance With regard to paragraph 4 of the Bill, which allowed the Minister to divert money voted for one object and use it for another?

said he had a grievance to bring forward with regard to the lepers transferred from Bloemfontein to Pretoria. These people, to the number of 87, belonged to the Church of England. Money had been collected to build a church, and this money had been taken with them to Pretoria. They applied to the Government for land, but were refused on the ground that if it was granted to one denomination it would have to be given to another. He knew that old stock answer—(laughter)—as he had been in that service himself. Why could not the Government have granted the land? It was not as if they were short of ground—they had something like 1,000 morgen. He thought it was a small thing for the Government to grant. It would not have been such a great request even had they asked for a church to be built for their use. These people had been withdrawn from the comforts of life, and the Government practically refused them the consolations of their religion. There was also a matter he wished to bring to the notice of the Minister of Native Affairs. He had noticed in the Cape Town Press a report that Mr. Smit, lately a Johannesburg Town Councillor, had received a lucrative appointment, and would shortly take up the post at a salary of £600 per annum.

said with regard to the amount under the heading of wineries, this matter was referred to the Public Accounts Committee by the House, but that had not yet been done.

But are you going to do so?

replied that it would be done in due course. With regard to the other points, he was not in a position to give an answer at that moment.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

said he noticed that a sum of £250,000 appeared in the schedule in two columns, making it available for expenditure under other heads. He would like an explanation.

thought the amount should be expunged in column 1, the sum was intended to be held" in reserve for stores.

The schedule as printed was agreed to.

moved that the amount set down for Cape wineries be reduced by £38,844 6s. 8d.— the capital. They had been doing too much for the shareholders of these wineries, and the policy should be dropped. The taxpayers of the country had supplied capital which had been expended by the shareholders in paying themselves a high price for grapes, while but a very small proportion of the shareholders’ contribution had been called up. The shareholders had played ducks and drakes with the taxpayers’ money, and the result was that the country suffered. He meant to test the feeling of the House on the point, which was of the utmost importance.

hoped that his hon. friend would not press the matter, because the House had already expressed an opinion. He rose to draw the Minister’s attention to the slipshod way in which the Bill had been drafted, which made it difficult to follow what was happening.

said he must press for a reduction.

The reduction was put and declared negatived.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew, and the vote was agreed to.

The clauses having been considered and agreed to,

The Bill was reported with amendments in the Dutch version. The amendments were considered and adopted.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation (1912-13) Bill.

said he saw an item of £20,000 payment to the C.F.L.M. in connection with the adjustment of rates. He wished to know whether this was to be an annual payment, and whether every time the Union adjusted its railway rates it would have to make a payment to the Portuguese Government.

said he did not think it wise that the House should continually debate this matter. It was discussed at length the other day. The payment referred to had had to be made in order to get the Portuguese Government to consent to a reduction of the railway rates.

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

moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.

Agreed to.

asked what had been done to improve the conditions under which live stock was carried on railways. He mentioned the case of four cows which were travelling by rail from Wednesday to Monday, and were watered only once during that time. In the Argentine it was compulsory to water stock being conveyed by rail every 24 hours. As showing the financial loss sustained through the conveyance of livestock long distances by train, the hon. member mentioned that when an ox was conveyed from Queen’s Town to Cape Town, which occupied five days, the animal deteriorated to the extent of 35s., notwithstanding that all possible precautions were taken. A sheep carried a similar distance lost 5s. in value. This meant a vast annual loss to the Union. It sometimes happened that stock went five days without being fed or watered when they were being conveyed by train. In fact, the present state of affairs seemed to him to be absolutely inhuman. In the United States, on the other hand, livestock trains were given precedence over those carrying passengers, and it would be a good thing if that principle were introduced here. (Cheers.) Sometimes livestock trains in South Africa were shunted for as long as two days at a time. It was urgent that something should be done to maintain our reputation of being a humane and civilised people. Concluding, Mr. Struben referred to the new practice of monthly instead of the weekly payment of wages to daily paid men, which was causing a great deal of unrest and dissatisfaction. (Hear, hear.)

complained of the treatment of cattle on the railways, which he held was far from satisfactory. He also drew attention to the manner in which passengers’ luggage was dealt with. In many instances luggage on the railways was seriously damaged. He trusted that the Minister, who was still young, would see that an improvement was effected. They might appear to be small matters to which he had drawn attention, but it was a fact that they gave annoyance to passengers.

urged that passengers on the railways should receive courteous treatment at the hands of the railway servants. He drew particular attention to the case of a visitor from the Free State to the Rosebank Show, who was compelled to leave in a second class carriage and otherwise treated with discourtesy. Such things should not occur.

referred to the case of a farmer who had lost a number of ostriches in transit on the railways. The railway freight charges amounted to £103, whilst the loss on the value of the consignment amounted to £750. He hoped the Minister would see that proper provision was made in future for the carriage of ostriches.

said that he wished to draw the Minister’s attention to the necessity of making adequate provision at Salt River-Works in case of accident. He asked the Minister a question in regard to this matter a little while ago, but he did not receive a satisfactory reply. There was no ambulance at Salt River available in case of accident, and any case that arose had to be carried across the line to the railway surgery, which was some distance away, and not connected by telephone with the house of the railway medical officer. Provision of a suitable character was made at Uitenhage and East London. He found from a return that in the year ending September 30, 1912, the Uitenhage division of the South African Railway Ambulance Corps attended 574 cases, while the East London division attended 63 cases. It was a curious thing that, while in the regulations issued by the Government a large number of employees on the mines, had to have certificates for ambulance work, the Government itself simply snapped its finger at the whole matter. Here they had a works where something like 1,000 men were following dangerous occupations, and yet they had not got the most elementary precautions in the case of accident. He hoped the Minister would not delay action until a dreadful accident happened.

said he had no doubt that the Minster and the Administration would, after their attention had been drawn to the manner in which livestock was conveyed, give the matter their most serious consideration. He knew the difficulty of preventing every case of what might really be considered neglect in carrying livestock on the line. It was not the matter of loss of money which was so dreadful, but he thought what would commend itself to the Minister and the House was the unnecessary suffering which these dumb animals had to go through.

He also thought the Government should encourage thrift and economy amongst its employees by adopting the system of weekly payment of wages. It was well known that tradesmen who had to give credit were compelled to charge higher prices. The ordinary farmer paid his men weekly wages in order to suit their convenience and requirements. He hoped the Government would seriously consider the desirability of changing the present system, as weekly payments gave the employees greater purchasing powers.

pointed out that when the railways were under the management of the last speaker the arrangements were bad. (The hon. member’s further remarks were inaudible.)

referred to the unsatisfactory condition created through the shortage of rolling-stock, pointing to a case in which during a journey from Pretoria to Kroonstad he had been forced to spend the night on the open platform at the end of the train owing to every compartment being crowded. Even women and children frequently had to do the like, and the speaker thought the travelling public were entitled to better treatment.

said he was glad to see the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had changed his views* with regard to the question of weekly payments. There was a time when he had voted against it.

drew attention to the unsatisfactory condition of affairs at Worcester Station. A sum of money had been voted for alterations to the place, but, up to the present, nothing had been done. The staff had to work under the greatest difficulty in dealing with the traffic. There was only accommodation for 19 trucks in the siding, and as they had a great deal of transhipment taking place, hon. members could understand what an urgent necessity the enlargement of the station was becoming. It frequently happened that the Cape Central train had to wait outside the station for want of accommodation. They also had difficulty in dealing with the dynamite train, which passed through twice per week, and which was frequently hung up for hours outside the station, at great risk to the public. There was also want of accommodation on the platform. He was certain that the cost of administration was very much increased, owing to the lack of accommodation.

said they wished to know at Willowmore when their new station was likely to be built, and also on which side of the line it was to be placed. The public were being greatly inconvenienced by the delay which had taken place. He had consulted the stationmaster, and there seemed to be no difficulties.

The schedule was agreed to.

The clauses having been agreed to, the Bill was reported with amendments, in the Dutch version.

These amendments were agreed to by the House.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works Additional Appropriation (1912-1913) Bill.

said he thought that the Bill should stand down until Motion No. 1, dealing with the expenditure of over £47,000 m connection with the Kowie Railway, had been dealt with.

said it was not a contentious matter, and the Order had been arranged merely as a matter of convenience.

The hon. Minister might have £47,000 odd voted, which he would not know what to do with.

said he had no objection to the Order standing over until the motion had been dealt with.

It was agreed that the Order stand over.

That this House approves of the purchase of the assets of the Kowie Railway Company, Limited (in liquidation), excepting only the cash in hand, for the sum of forty-seven thousand five hundred pounds sterling, upon the terms set out in the tender of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, addressed to the liquidator of the said company, dated 21st February, 1913, which tender was, on the 12th day of March, 1913, accepted by the liquidator, under authority of the Eastern Districts Local Division of the Supreme Court of the Union. He said it was in the interests of the country that the railway should not be allowed to go by the board, and there was good reason that the line would be made to pay.

raised the question of the position of the employees of the Kowie Railway if the railway was taken over by the Government. Up to the present time the men had enjoyed their full political rights as citizens and taxpayers of South Africa, and now, while the Government were doing the right thing in taking over the railway, they were at the same time taking away the citizen rights of the employees of the Kowie Railway. If they progressed in South Africa as they were doing in other countries, it meant that in thirty or forty years to come they would have a small number of private employees enjoying full political privileges, and a large number of Government employees, equally citizens and taxpayers, who would be prevented from having any voice in the spending of the country’s revenue. These men would be prevented from exercising an intelligent interest in the affairs of the country. Surely it should be the policy of any sane Government to welcome and not to oppress, any additional intelligence which could be introduced for the welfare of the country. He did not know of any other country in the British Empire where such a state of affairs existed. He was in Devonport a short time ago, and made inquiries with regard to the political privileges of the Government employees, and found that they had the fullest freedom He also made inquiries at Woolwich, and found that the employees were not interfered with in any degree whatever with regard to their political acts or opinions. It was the same in Australia, but here, in the youngest of all the Dominions, they had the Government intervening, and saying that while they were going to take more and more work, these additional men were going to be deprived of their political freedom. That was not a desirable state of things, either from the point of view of the men themselves or for the benefit of the whole country.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Bill be read a second time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a second time.

moved that the House now go into Committee.

Agreed to.

asked how the Minister was going to vote the sum of £47,000 for the Kowie Railway.

said the Kowie Railway owed £20,000, so they only had to pay £27,000.

said the Minister asked for £47,000, but he only needed £27,000.

said that the £20,000 was due to the Treasury.

said he did not think that the Minister needed to ask for £47,000.

pointed out that there were two Treasurers at present.

said de did not see why the Minister need ask for more than £27,000. He would also ask the Minister if these sums were being added to the capital account of the railway.

asked whether the Kowie Railway employees were going to be subject to the regulations at present in force and whether their citizen rights would be respected.

said that the men would be given an opportunity of joining the joint service.

said he hoped that the Minister would consider the serious question raised by the hon. member for Durban, Greyville. He supported the taking over of the railway—that should have been done a year ago—but he thought the rights of the men should be respected.

said he would move an amendment to clause 3 to provide that the money paid for the redemption of debentures be handed over to the Public Debt Commissioners.

said that the Railway Administration would purchase the line for £47,500, but £20,000 of that belonged to the Treasury. The hon. member had better raise the point later on.

If the Minister will tell me when I am to raise the point, I will let the matter stand over.

Next year.

suggested that £27,500 be paid in cash, and that the £20,000 worth of debentures be written off, thus saving the unnecessary raising of the latter amount.

asked whether the Directors of the Kowie Railway Company had made representations to Government in order to safeguard the conditions under which the employees of the company would enter the Union service.

wished to know if the services of the men on the Kowie line would be counted for pension purposes if they joined the Union Railways Pension Fund.

was sorry that he could not give any further information. He would try to see that the men were fairly dealt with.

The schedule was agreed to.

On clause 3,

moved, as an amendment: “ Provided that the sum of £20,000 payable to the Treasury for the redemption of the debentures shall be paid by the Treasury to the Public Debt Commissioners.”

thought that under the Act that money would have to go into the sinking fund.

could not see the necessity of raising £20,000 that would not be required. Therefore it would be necessary, he thought, to raise only £27,500.

remarked that after all the great authorities had spoken about the £20,000—(laughter)— it would be interesting to follow its history next year in the Auditor-General’s report.

said that the money for the debentures was originally paid out of the revenue of the Cape, which was amalgamated with the Railway revenue; so practically it was paid out of the Railway revenue. Therefore it should go into the Railway revenue now, and be placed to the Depreciation Fund.

said that would be a very good line to adopt if we had not the South Africa Act, which distinguished between the two administrations, and made it impossible for them to say that the revenue was Railway revenue.

said he would like to know where the debentures were.

In the Treasury

My hon. friend stays “in the Treasury,” but how does he know? I am under the impression that they are in the hands of the Public Debt Commissioners.

said he hoped the hon. menu her for Cape Town, Central, would not insist upon his amendment, because he did not think it was necessary to make this proviso. The position was somewhat uncertain. He did not really know whether the debentures were held by the Public Debt Commissioners or held by the Treasury. If this £20,000 came to the Treasury then in the ordinary course it would go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but he was sure that this money would be dealt with on the same basis as were the other sums which were reported upon by the Auditor-General, and in regard to which, after they had been reported on, the Treasury acted in accordance with the report of the Auditor-General.

said that, even supposing these debentures were held by the Public Debt Commissioners, they were only held in trust for the Treasury. He was prepared to alter his amendment to the effect that they should be paid into the Sinking Fund. If the Minister would give the House an assurance that this money would be paid during the present financial year into the Exchequer Account then he thought that would get over the difficulty.

said he hoped the hon. member would withdraw his amendment, because if these monies were paid into the Sinking Fund it would raise further difficulties.

withdrew his amendment, and the clause was agreed to.

On Clause 4,

called the Minister’s attention to the need of improving certain of the platform accommodation on the Boksburg-Springs and Boksburg-Benoni Lines, and providing better housing accommodation for the employees.

The clause was agreed to.

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

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

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

said he would like to suggest to the hon. Minister that the House should take some other matter, and put this debate down for to-morrow. He thought it was a pity that an important discussion like that should be resumed at that hour of the day. He hoped the Minister would recognise the reasonableness of the request.

said he had no objections to the discussion being resumed at 8 o’clock.

said if he was in order he would move that the debate stand over until tomorrow.

This was agreed to.

trusted that when the debate was begun the following day it would be proceeded with to the end.

said that was agreeable with his wish.

thought that some latitude should be given to retail holders of stock in respect to paying increased duty on stocks held by them. He hoped the Department would not go to the extreme letter of the law in harrying these retail holders of old stocks.

said they had on previous occasions dealt very fairly with these people, and it was not contemplated to act otherwise on this occasion.

The clause was agreed to.

The remainder of the clauses were agreed to without discussion.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved that the House go into Committee on the first report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

This was agreed to.

This Committee recommends: (1) That, subject to the consent of Joan Russell and to the production of a satisfactory medical certificate, her widow’s pension of £10 11s. per annum be regarded us being of the value of £10 per annum, in order that it may be commuted by the payment of a capital sum of money in terms of sections 65 and 67 of Act No. 32 of 1895 (Cape).

drew attention to this recommendation of the Committee, in which Parliament was asked to sanction the commutation of a pension of £10 11s., while the Act clearly stated that no pension exceeding £10 could be commuted. He did not know whether a resolution of that House could overrule an Act of Parliament, but he thought the House would stultify itself by calling a pension of £10 11s. as being only one of £10.

said the lady in receipt of the pension was anxious to go in for a course of training with a view to becoming a nurse. The pension in itself was of little use, but if commuted she would be able to qualify for the nursing profession.

said he sympathised with the lady in question, but if the law was wrong it should be altered.

said the case in point involved a principle, the law distinctly stated that no pension over £10 could be commuted. His hon. friend said that a sum of 11s. per annum was being given up, but whether that was so or not, they were proposing to depart from the principle that the Pension Fund allowed no pension to be commuted over the amount of £10. In support of the contention of the hon. member for Fordsburg, he read an extract expressing the views of a number of people representing the Widows’ Pension Fund, and endeavouring to show that a resolution of the House could not overrule a statute of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope passed in 1879.

said the only point was what the procedure of the House was to be in these matters. The committee could only bring up a report. The first stage was to get their recommendation adopted or otherwise, and then it could be dealt with. His hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort said they would be breaking an Act of Parliament, but that would only be done by an amending Act. The point was that the Minister of Finance had not decided what was the procedure, but had promised to consider the matter. Did the hon. member object to its being considered?

said that the funds of those who contributed were going to be in danger if they departed from the rule which stated that no pension over £10 should be commuted. The moment they moved in one case they might move in dozens, or hundreds of cases, and the security of the fund would not be as sound as it otherwise would be. The Government had no right to grant those extra amounts out of the fund, and if they wanted to deal with an extra hard case, they should make a grant which would not be taken out of the fund at all. There was undoubtedly some ground for alarm from the contributors’ point of view.

said if the woman was going to give up eleven shillings, she was waiving a right. Did it mean that her commuted amount was to be the equivalent of a pension of £10 a year instead of £10 11s., and she would get a Jump sum? A lump sum would mean that something would have to be realised. They would have to pay off that out of capital, and not through the interest of the fund. To that extent the security of the fund would be weakened. The same principle would apply in respect to larger sums, and in his view it was better than the money should be drawn annually. If they began tampering with expressed statutes by resolution they were entering upon a dangerous course. If, however, it was a question of waiving rights, it was a different matter to some extent, and it was for the committee to decide. He was not at all satisfied that it was wise to tamper with the safeguards.

said they were transgressing the law every time they granted one of those pensions. Parliament was going to be generous at the expense of the Widows’ Pension Fund, to which, he was informed, the State did not contribute, but if they were going to give expression to their feelings of benevolence, it should be at their own expense.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when the House rose, the hon. member for George had tried to show that this recommendation was not different to those made on previous occasions. He (the speaker) thought there was a great difference. The committee had had before it a case of great hardship, and as no provision had been made for such a case in any Act of Parliament, the committee recommended that a certain grant of money should be made. The committee had made recommendations that broke an Act of Parliament in force at the present time. The Act said that the committee could not commute a pension over the amount of £10, and the committee met the objection by asking the Committee of that House to look upon an amount of over £10 as £10. They were dealing with an individual case, and, if they passed the recommendation, not only would they be over-riding an Act of Parliament, but the pension fund might be the loser. His idea was that the committee had no right to take a step of this kind. If this was a deserving case, as he believed it was, the Select Committee could have come forward with a recommendation as though this were a gratuity, and take the money from the revenue of the country, and not from the pension fund, to which members of the Civil Service made contributions. This might be a very small matter, but if they over-rode the Act of Parliament in a case of 11s., one never knew where it would stop.

said that two points had been raised in the course of the debate. The point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg was a question of procedure, and the other was the point that had just been raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He (the speaker) quite agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg, and if this was to become law, the recommendation would have to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. He was sure that before the end of the session all these matters would be dealt with by an Act of Parliament. The other point was the effect this proposal would have on the pensions fund, and he (the speaker) could not follow the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the effect of the recommendation would be an advantage to the pension fund. By bringing the amount down to £10, he thought that the fund would gain, instead of lose. It was an advantage to the fund, and it helped this poor woman, and the pension fund was really the gainer.

said he could quite understand that the fund would gain if they were dealing with a large volume of business, but they were dealing with an individual case, and if the individual died within twelve months, the fund would be the loser. He thought that the Committee should hesitate before it departed from the terms of a Statute.

said he could not agree with the hon. member for George. He did not profess to be a financial expert, but if people who belonged to an insurance company were to commute their policies, of course, it would be of enormous benefit to the insurance company concerned. Insurance companies worked on averages. But here they had an individual case. It was not proposed that a number of these people should commute their pensions. In the past they had dealt with these cases, and the Act stipulated for a very good reason that pensioners should not be allowed to commute their pensions above the amount of £10. The Committee seemed to be aware of this, and it appeared to him that they had tried to get over the difficulty by what the lawyers would call a legal fiction. Instead of having the boldness to say, “ This is a deserving case, let us pass a special Act,” they went in for a legal fiction, and they said, “Let us consider £10 11s. to be £10, so that it will fall within the terms of the Act.” But there was another aspect, and one upon which he could speak from long experience. These pensions were granted to keep people in want from want. When commutation took place, the pensioner was always full of hope, thinking that the money he or she was receiving was going to launch them out in life. The usual consequence was that they came back to that House, stated that they were destitute, and asked for relief. The House knew that that had happened and that was why a law was passed to the effect that no pension could be attached. Here they had the special case, and he said that, instead of drawing upon the pension fund, they should vote a special amount.

said that he had served on the Pensions Committee, and applications of this character were numerous. The great bulk of these people were hopeful of doing great things with the money, but they had always come back to the House for relief. He had a good deal of sympathy with the Pensions Committee, which went into each case with the utmost possible care, and the House should hesitate before it set aside recommendations made by that committee. The sole question before the House was whether it was going to trust the Pensions Committee or whether it was not.

in supporting the recommendations of the committee, said that the petitioner asked to be given £100 in order that she might be trained as a nurse, and thus be put in a position to earn her own living.

said that the petitioner proved to the Pensions Committee that she could not live on £10 11s. a year. The recommendation was in the interests both of the petitioner and the country.

asked if the petitioner had yet drawn any pension?

replied in the negative.

expressed the hope that the report of the committee would be accepted.

The recommendation was agreed to.

further moved that recommendations Nos. 2 to 8 be affirmed.

asked whether the Minister of Finance had inquired into the case referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Central).

replied in the negative.

referring to No. 8, inquired why there was a difference made in dealing with it.

replied that the provincial administration could provide in those oases.

The recommendations were agreed to.

referred to the case of C. T. Simpson, in which the committee expressed the opinion that the application for relief should be deferred until such time as the petitioner retired. Mr. Botha said that the petitioner asked the committee to consider his position in the Service generally. Mr. Simpson had been in the old Free State Railway, and was now penned up in the Provincial Department as a sort of financial pundit, but all sorts of junior clerks were being given precedence over him. There was no use telling a man what his position in the Service would be when he retired.

said he did not think it would be necessary to point out to the hon. member that the Pensions Committee had nothing whatever to do with the status of a man in the public Service.

moved that petition No. 5 (1), A. M. Bengtson, be referred back to the Select Committee. He stated that the applicant entered the railway service in 1886, and with a break served until he was retrenched in August, 1912, because he had reached the age limit. He received a gratuity of £38 5s. 4d., based on four days’ pay for every effective year’s service. Mr. Boydell urged that the break should be condoned so that applicant would be entitled to an increased gratuity to the extent of £14.

said the House had always laid down that unless there was new and additional evidence to lay before the committee, cases of this kind should not be sent back. In reference to this particular case, there was no scale of gratuity, and the Railway Department went out of their way to deal with it on the basis laid down in the Bill which subsequently became an Act of Parliament. If this House was going to condone the breaks of all public servants, especially railway servants, it would open the floodgates and they would be deluged with applications. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought it was unfortunate that any member should go on to the committee and take a special interest in any particular case, and try to push it for all he was worth. He hoped the House would not agree to the motion.

said that he did not think because a man was on a committee that should deter him from doing his duty in any particular case. The only additional evidence that he had was that in the discharge certificate granted by the Railway Department it was stated that this man entered the Service in 1886 and had 26 years’ service, being retrenched in August, 1912. Even though there might be a large number of cases, if they were unjust, he submitted that they ought to be dealt with.

said the Select Committee went carefully into every case brought before it, and was sympathetic towards every hard case. He could not see the use of referring this matter back to the Select Committee, the more so because no new facts had been disclosed. If the House agreed to refer this matter back to the Select Committee, it would simply mean a waste of time.

said he hoped the hon. member (Mr. Currey) would accept this motion for reference back, even though there might be no further evidence. This man entered the service in 1886, and there was no record on his discharge note of any break in the service. If that discharge note were presented and no other evidence was forthcoming, the hon. member for George and his confreres would, willy-nilly, have acceded to the request.

There is the General Manager’s evidence.

Here is his evidence in writing—the discharge note—issued to the individual himself. Proceeding, he said, that if they took a stiff-necked attitude that the man had a break in his service, he could produce that evidence that he had not. The discharge note could be considered as a set-off. Apart from the question of legality or of actual fact, supposing for the sake of argument that this break had occurred—it was a short period of five weeks only—the Administration evidently did not think it worth while considering. For the purpose of comparison he would draw their attention to the case of D. Plekker. (An HON. MEMBER: “A teacher.”) It was immaterial whether it was a teacher, the Chairman of the Pensions, Grants and Gratuities Committee, or a farmer at Ermelo. They all had a right to be considered. In the case he referred to there was a break of from January, 1907, to March, 1909. There were other cases where there were similar breaks of two years and over which had been condoned by the same committee. It was a case of the bottom dog. It was a most remarkable thing, but it was always those at the bottom who suffered, but unfortunately it was so. The hon. member could say “Ah” as much as he liked, but those were the men who always suffered. They did not get the consideration that other individuals did. He strongly supported the contention that the matter should be referred back to the committee.

said that what the hon. members for Greyville and Springs desired to bring forward as fresh evidence was not fresh evidence at all, and the case of a teacher was one of a different position altogether. They got leave in order to get more proficient in their profession.

said he had had much experience of cases of that character, and he claimed to have an equal amount of sympathy with hon. members who had spoken, but he was satisfied that the fault was not with the committee, and he absolved them from all blame in the matter. He thought much more liberal treatment would be very desirable, but with the law as it stood he felt that nothing could be done.

The motion was negatived.

culled for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Brown, Haggar and Madeley) voted in favour of the motion,

declared the motion negatived.

The resolutions were reported without amendment, and adopted.

This has already been acted upon by the Railway Administration; there is nothing to do but to adopt it.

said that this seemed to be an incorrect piece of accountancy. There was no parallel between a saving on a head and revenue earned, and it was not based upon the sound principle which Mr. Speaker had laid down. How this revenue could be looked upon as a saving from different heads it was impossible for him to say. If one looked at what had been done the matter became an absolute farce. Money had been allocated by rule of thumb and the accounts appeared to be obscured. He could not understand why the committee had consented to an arrangement of this sort.

said that this form of accountancy certainly opened up a grave constitutional question. He did not agree with the last speaker that there was an entire analogy between the question of the one pound vote and this question. With regard to the £1 vote, what was done was this: Supposing the Government wanted to spend £50,000 and there were to be recovery of £49,000, then the vote would be one of £1,000. The question was, how could the House reduce by £1,000 if only £1,000 was asked for? But a new method was being adopted which did not leave the House with full control over money matters. The Government asked for £59,000. This was less £15,000 for recoveries, and the amount asked for was £44,000. Supposing one moved a reduction—on which item was that reduction to go? Supposing the House reduced the amount by £20,000. He did not know whether the House followed him, but it was a most important question because it was taking out of the hands of the House the power of the purse. £44,000 was asked for on cartage service. Suppose a reduction of £20,000 was moved. Upon which item would the reduction take place Would they distribute it pro rata under different heads? Were they going to allow the Minister to play with this money as he pleased? If the House moved for a reduction of £10,000 the House might want to reduce wages by £10,000. Instead of reducing wages by £10,000, the Minister might take it from something else. The point was that the House had no control after saying that there should be a reduction of £10,000.

We have done it that way. We have amended the schedule now

I am dealing with the Estimates upon which the report of the Public Accounts Committee is based.

It has been amended in the way you are arguing.

That is just what has not been done. Continuing, he said that the Estimates had been amended in the direction of the £1 Vote, as was the case when he was Speaker. At that time the House was asked to vote £1. There was to be an expenditure of £20,000, but the Government expected to get £19,999 back, so they asked for £1. The House could only reduce £1 by £1. He found that what happened was this. If the House reduced the vote by 10s., the Auditor-General struck off £10,000. He went the whole hog. (Laughter.) He came to the conclusion that the £1 vote system was taking the power out of the hands of that House of dealing with public money. Accordingly, notice was given to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the Opposition that the Speaker would no longer permit of these votes. Now a different system was adopted.

It has been amended to £59,000.

I take it that this report is perfectly futile; the pundits do not agree. (Laughter.) I am willing to accept the Minister as an authority on law, but not on finance.

Continuing, Sir Henry said the Government expected to spend on this vote £59,000 and to receive £15,000, £44,000 being the sum that the House was asked to deal with. It appeared to him that that was wrong constitutionally. If cue Minister proposed to spend £59,000 and expected to get some of that back, what it received back should be paid into revenue—(hear, hear)—and the Ministry should not be in a position to do what it liked with the money. Every penny which was to go out should be voted by the House, and every penny recovered by the Government should go into the public funds, but it should not be dealt with by the Ministry. He would suggest that the Public Accounts Committee should recommend that the Estimates should contain the full amount required, and that there should be marginal notes stating that a certain amount of the money voted was expected to be recovered.

said he agreed with the lion, member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins) that this was not a parallel case to the one alluded to in the second report, which was one of a distinct saving having been made on the vote. In this case the Harbour Department was doing cartage work for the Railway Department, for which it charged the latter £15,000. A method should be evolved by which the true state of affairs should be made apparent.

said Parliament must vote the amount that was to be spent. Parliament was being misled as to the expenditure, which was not that set down under the various heads. The House was voting £15,000 less than the Minister must spend. The best way would be to vote the total amount.

said the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth amounted to this: that the Harbour Department would be charged the whole cost of the cartage work, while the Railway Department would be charged with none of the cost, but that in a footnote it should be explained that the Railway Department ought to be charged with something. But that would not be a clear financial statement as to the position of the railways in this matter. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had raised an argument on a point which did not now exist. The Harbour Department was acting as a cartage agent for itself and the Railway Department. The latter must be charged with its share of cartage expenditure.

said he entirely agreed with the case raised by the hon. member for Barkly and the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. He thought the sound principle was that every penny that was being expended on any service under the Government should be voted by Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He would like to draw the attention of the Minister, in connection with his amended Estimates, which he had referred to the consideration of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, to the fact that this House was only asked to vote £44,000.

No. Look at the Railway Estimates.

I am looking at page 32—Cartage, £44,369. My hon. friend intends to spend £15,500 on railways. I contend that, if this change in the Estimates is adopted, my hon. friend can only spend in that department £5,500 in wages; and, if he spends £15,500, the Auditor-General will tell him that it is unauthorised expenditure. Under these circumstances, in order that the opinion of the Auditor-General might be obtained, I would move that this report be referred back to the Public Accounts Committee.

said that, in view of the conflict of opinion that they had heard, he thought the subject might be reconsidered.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amended motion was agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the North Barrow and Weenen Commonage Amendment Bill, said that this was a little Bill dealing with lots which were locked up, but which it was hoped that Parliament would render available for land settlement. The first clause enabled the resumption of land at North Barrow, which was set apart in 1860 as commonage, and the intention of the Government was, as soon as this Bill became law, to have this land settled in the form of closer settlement. In 1896 a portion of the land was surveyed as a township, but only one erf was sold. That erf had since been surrendered to the Government, so that the whole of the land was at present lying unused, and no private interests would be involved in the event of the passage of the first clause of this Bill. The second clause of the Bill would enable the Governor-General to dispose of certain lots in the township of Weenen, which was mainly an irrigation settlement. In 1900 an Act was passed by the Natal Parliament, under which the Government was authorised to use certain lands for irrigation. Unfortunately, several lots could not be irrigated, and, therefore, were not sold. They could not now be sold, according to the opinion of the Government’s legal advisers, without further legislation, because the Act at present only authorised the sale of irrigable lands. The intention, if this Bill were passed, was to sell these lots as dryland lots. The third clause was merely the formal repeal of an Act of 1875 in regard to leasing.

said that, as far as the Weenen Commonage was concerned, he had communicated with the local authorities, and they appeared to be quite in accord with this Bill. He hoped there would be no difficulty about the matter going through. He would like to ask the Minister whether it was his intention to put the lots up for public competition at an early date?

said that, as to the North Barrow lands, he would have liked to have heard a little more from the Minister in regard to what notice had been given to the previous owner. He would have liked to have been assured that sufficient time had been allowed by the Government for any objections that might be raised.

said that he should support the second reading of this Bill. He had spoken to Several people in respect to North Barrow, and he believed there was no objection to the procedure proposed under the Bill.

said he was very much alarmed at a statement made by the Minister in the course of his second reading speech. He had told them that section 3 provided for the repeal of a law which allowed these lots to be let out on lease. If that were so, it seemed to him that this apparently harmless little Bill, as the Minister had called it, was very harmful indeed. Important spots in Natal were about to be resumed by the Government. With that he found no fault. But here they had a Minister calmly proposing to resume land, in order that he might re-alienate it. Under clause 3, it was proposed to remove any possibility of the Government being allowed to lease this land, so that only those people who could raise the necessary money to buy it were going to be able to obtain this land, and the poor man would be shut out from any chance of using it. The poor unfortunate individual who had no means of earning his living other than on the land was prevented from doing so because the land had to be bought. They, on the cross benches, would continue to protest strongly against the further alienation of State lands. They could lease it as much as they liked provided it carried the qualification that the land was being beneficially occupied. They would be glad to support any system of perpetual leasing in such circumstances. They desired to see more and more land concentrated in the hands of the State and used for the benefit of the community.

The motion was agreed to, the Bill read a second time, and set down for the committee stage on Monday.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.