from Evelyn B. Appleby, widow of H. Appleby, late Chief Examiner of Customs and Excise, Natal, who died in 1910, praying that the House may grant her an additional gratuity, or for other relief.

from P. M. Sheehan, formerly gaoler at Jacobsdal, who after over 20 years service was retired from the Prisons Department in 1911, praying for a pension, or for other relief.

from J. W. B. de Villiers and others, residents of the town and district of Jacobsdal, in support of the above petition of P. M. Sheehan.

from A. W. Cumming, Mayor, and 270 others, inhabitants, of Douglas, praying for the construction of a line of railway from Douglas to Belmont, as authorised by the Cape Parliament in 1906, or to some other point on the main line, or for other relief.

from W. D. S. Lotter, formerly Senior Assistant Resident Magistrate of the Cape, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1890, and was retired in 1912 in consequence of ill-health, praying for the consideration of his circumstances and for relief.

Report of the South African Museum, 1910, 1911 and 1912.

Annual Report of the Trades Commissioner, 1911.

moved the third reading of the Financial Relations Bill.

asked for the Speaker’s ruling. When the House last considered the measure it adopted, on the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton), the following amendment to clause 5, subsection 1: To insert the following paragraph to follow paragraph (b): “(c) the salaries paid to any officials in the service of the Provincial Administration shall be those recommended by the Public Service Commission unless the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council shall have been obtained for any departure from such recommendations.” Mr. Henderson said that according to the title of the Bill it provided for the transfer of certain additional powers to the Provincial Councils Under Standing Order No. 158 was not the amendment to which he had referred contrary to the title of the Bill? The amendment took away certain powers which the Provincial Councils now possessed, and in his opinion that was contrary to the title of the Bill.

The main object of this Bill was to settle the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces and in granting certain moneys and in assigning certain sources of revenue, it was competent for this House to place such restrictions and conditions on such grants and assignments as it may think fit. The provision in question is, in my opinion, covered by the Title of the Bill.

said he again wished to protest against the clause in regard to the totalisator. He regretted that the Minister had accepted an amendment in the Select Committee to insert this clause, and he hoped that in another place the provision dealing with the totalisator would be defeated. He did not see why the Cape Province, which had not had a totalisator for years, should again be compelled to have one. He could understand that a place like Johannesburg liked to have a totalisator, but the Cape certainly did not. He claimed that in making that protest, he was voicing the views of the public.

The motion was adopted.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved that the Maclear and Elliot Districts Provision Bill, as amended in Committee of the whole House, be considered. He said there was a verbal amendment to clause 1, in line 2, on page 4. It referred to Proclamation No. 2 of 1907, whereas there were other Proclamations concerned. He would, therefore, move to delete the word “Proclamation.” and substitute “subsequent Proclamations issued prior to the said date.” The words “thirty-nine” should also read “thirty-seven.”

These amendments were agreed to, together with the Committee’s amendments in clause 1.

New clause 2 was agreed to.

moved that the Bill he read a third time.

objected.

The third reading of the Bill was set down for Wednesday next.

in moving the second reading of the Railways Construction Bill, said that, before beginning the schedules, it would be as well if he made some remarks upon other features of the Bill which offered difficulties. The powers asked for in the, Bill were the same as those which had been secured in the last Railway Act of 1911, and they in no way altered the existing law. There was one amendment, however, which, he thought, they would all agree with him, was reasonable and proper. It was to ensure that, before any line shall be constructed, that the necessary rights in land can be obtained on reasonable terms. No one had any right to interfere with the rights of just compensation. But in the past, no sooner had Parliament given the authorisation to have railways constructed, than the owners of land proceeded at once to put up the value to an exorbitant price. It was not in future intended to pay these exorbitant prices, and the railways will not be proceeded with until the rights and land can he had at reasonable prices. It will thus depend upon the people in the localities concerned whether the railways authorised are proceeded with or not. With regard to narrow-gauge railways, he was not in love with them, although there might be districts where this gauge might serviceably be used. It would be better to follow out the policy of building their developing lines on a reasonable basis, thereby avoiding the necessity of building narrow-gauge lines for reasons of economy. With regard to the siding for the Agricultural Show Ground at Johannesburg, representations had been made that this should be utilised for public traffic. The length of this line was about a mile, and he might state arrangements had been made whereby it would become available for use by the public. With regard to their question of expropriation, pending the passing of a General Bill dealing with the question, the acquirement of land and water rights would be dealt with under existing legislation. Where these rights existed, and were defined by legislation, the present enactments would he followed. With regard to the gauge, hon. members would recollect that a Select Committee on this matter had recommended that a side width of 60 ft. for standard gauge and 40 ft. for narrow gauge should be adopted. In some Provinces the width varied, amounting to as much as 100 ft. It was, therefore, felt that should be a settlement of the question as regarded the lines of the Union. Then, with regard to claims of £300 and under. It was felt that claims for small amounts should be more expeditiously dealt with than by being forced to arbitration. It is, therefore, proposed that claims of £300 and under shall be dealt with by a Settlement Board, over which the local magistrate will preside. He thought that that was a reasonable thing to do. In the Transvaal, and he thought in Natal, provision was made for cases of £100 or less being brought before a Magistrate. He did not think any injustice would be done, and he thought it was quite a fair thing to do. There were some other provisions relating to the ratification of agreements made with various localities with regard to relieving them of the guarantees on lines that had been laid down.

Oh, no.

said Hutchinson was equi-distant from all the trade centres. The first part of the proposed route did not go through well-cultivated country, but that applied also to the extension from Victoria West. But there was one much more important consideration—that whatever additional small advantage was obtained by passing over a better country at the start, was counter-balanced by the fact that they would have to build 60 or 70 miles more line before they reached the wheat fields. Let them take some of the other propositions. There was an extension from Krom River—in many ways an attractive scheme. That would have taken them over some very good country, and followed the course of the Zaak River; but the prospects from a railway construction point of view were not satisfactory, and the distance would have been 50 miles more. As regards the Ceres extension, the proposal gave him a great deal of food for thought, as well as trouble and difficulty, because undoubtedly it was also an exceedingly attractive proposal, not only in regard to immediate needs, but possible developments in the future. Again, it would provide a backbone line from the North-western Districts to the North. But he confessed that, on the whole, that to the observer the greater portion of the country proposed to be traversed by the Ceres extension, did not look very hopeful. But he was not content with the impressions of an observer, and accordingly he took the advice of the Director of Irrigation, who said that the future development of that part of the country was not likely to come for another generation. Mr. Kanthack did not hold out such prospects of reasonably early development as to justify building the railway. It must not be forgotten that the objective were the rich cornfields of the north-west, probably the richest wheat fields in South Africa. A line from Ceres would be 263 miles in length, instead of 216 miles. A connection from the Van Rhynsdorp side was, he confessed, merely a matter of time. He hoped to see it come, but we could not do everything at once. For one thing, it would be very expensive. Reference had been made to the report of the Railway Board last year, which mentioned that, owing to the water supply not being sufficiently abundant, some of the richest soil in the world could not be cultivated, and it was estimated that the output would be half-a-million bags of wheat. But that estimate referred to the immediate Zaaidam area of the Zaak River. There was a large prospect of development, which was not taken into account in arriving at this half-a-million bags. Continuing, he said that there had been a great deal of unwatched development in the Kenhardt district, and he submitted that the construction of a line in this district was justified, though it might not pay in the first year or so of its existence. He hoped that the proposals laid before the House would be accepted in the spirit in which they had been made, with a view of adding to the agricultural development of this country.

said he agreed with the Minister when he said that as they only had a certain amount of money available for the construction of railways, lines should be built where the best development work would be done. But when he said that the routes had been selected on such a basis, then he (Mr. Jagger) could not agree. Continuing, he protested against a Bill of such importance, involving the spending of something like three millions of money, being brought before the House at that late stage of the session, and the whole policy of the Administration seemed to be one of leaving everything to the last moment. He also pointed out that the instructions for surveying the Carnarvon and the Idutywa lines had only been given in December, and the Wakkerstroom line as late as February, when the House had already been in session for a month. The result had been alterations in the proposals as compared with the ones submitted last year, and showed that the lines that were proposed last year were not the best. Take the Carnarvon line. It was now proposed to alter the junction point, and even now the Board did not seem to have made up its mind as to the route that should be followed. There was a material alteration in the Zastron proposals, while there had been a complete change of front in connection with the Vierfontein proposals. These changes made a bad impression on the House, and went to show how hurriedly some of these proposals were formulated. Then he must protest against the meagreness of the reports of the Railway Board, and instanced the case of the Carnarvon line, which occupied three paragraphs, despite the fact that it was proposed to spend something like three-quarters of a million of money. He thought the Minister would have done well if he had sent a traffic official to these districts to report to the Railway Board and to the House. Another point he would like to make was this: If the Railway Board was going to retain the confidence of the House and the confidence of the country it would have to give far more earnest consideration to the proposals that were placed before the House. (Hear, hear.) He said this with regret, because he was one of those who strongly supported the appointment of the Board. He always thought that the Board was going to be a check on the Government, and that it would give the greatest consideration to all the schemes that were proposed by the Government. He pointed out the reduction of the Carnarvon figures from £1,113,000 to £741,000. and went on to say that the suggestion for light railways did not come from the Railway Board or from the Minister, but came from members of that House, who gasped last year at the great cost per mile of the Carnarvon line. Then he would ask the Minister where the money was coming from for the construction of these lines. It was proposed to spend something like three millions of money on the lines in the Bill. Last year they voted £4,410,000 for railway construction and new works, and during the twelve months £2,280,000 was spent, leaving £2,130,000 still to be expended. There was, in addition, £614,000 worth of works that were sanctioned, but had not been completed. Dealing with the loan account, he said that as far as he could see there was only one and a half millions of money available for this expenditure, that was if the Minister did not over-draw.

Proceeding, the hon. member said it came to this, that in addition to the lines that were now proposed to be constructed there was about £1,670,000 authorised for lines last year, but which had not yet been constructed; to this had to be added the present proposals to spend a further three millions. Now, they had not funds to carry out these works, but it was said that they could go into the money market again. But what, he asked, were their prospects of getting a further loan at a reasonable rate of interest? Of the three millions loan at 4 per cent. they only had £180,000 subscribed. That meant that if they borrowed again there was not the slightest doubt but what they would have to pay considerably more for their money —probably more than 4½ per cent.—and if they were going to use this dear money it meant that these districts were going to be saddled with a big extra expense. As this policy meant that the annual loss would be considerably greater it was only right, he thought, that the House should know the true position of the loan account and what prospects there were of these new lines being constructed. If the hon. Minister waited until an improvement took place in the money market he was afraid he would have to wait a long time. It was, however, evident that without further borrowing the hon. Minister could not carry out the work that was already authorised but not yet completed. He (Mr. Jagger) had carefully gone into the proposals now before the House, and had tried to arrive at some principle which might be considered to have guided his hon. friend in selecting these lines. The only definite principle he could find was that certain interests had been considered, and that certain amounts had been allocated to each Province without any particular regard being paid as to the actual requirements of those Provinces. If they took the line to Carnarvon it would be found that it would serve only a grain-growing district. But that even was not a permanent interest, because last year there was no grain to carry. And yet they were going to build 170 miles of railway, merely to serve a district which occasionally grows good crops of grain. He did not wish to run down any interest, but he thought the general interests of a district should be considered in preference to those of any particular character. Then, they proposed to construct a line from Cape Town to Calvinia of 720 miles, when that place could be reached via Van Rhynsdorp—a distance of 311 miles, or from Ceres, of 275 miles. Did his hon. friend suppose that people would travel 720 miles instead of using a shorter route of 275 miles via Ceres? He thought it was very unlikely that the general public would travel by the Victoria West route. Nor did he think that any imported goods would be carried by the line, but the shorter ox-wagon route would be utilised. Then with regard to the development of the district over which the proposed new line would pass. Seventy-five miles of this was a sheep country, which was always capable of a limited development. The Zak River was then reached, but it left out of account the upper reaches, which were the most fertile parts of the valley. Practically the line only served Williston and Carnarvon itself. He thought a great mistake was being made by not adopting the route suggested by the engineer in his annual report of 1912. By doing this they would have brought into touch Loxton, Fraserberg, and the valley of the Zak River districts, which were very much more capable of development than those through which the proposed line was to pass. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he came now to some lines in Natal that he wanted to mention.

It was rather difficult for him to see what principle his hon. friend had gone upon in selecting these particular lines. The only principle that he could think of was that they happened to be in the constituencies of hon. members who were ardent adherents of the Government. (Hear, hear.) It might be a pure coincidence, of course, but it struck him as singular. The Gingindhlovu line was surveyed as far back as 1902 and 1904. A matter of £108,000 was going to be spent to bring that particular section, which was really only 17 miles from the main line, to Eshowe. And take the line from Schroders to terminus at or near lot 14a. This was going to cost £47,250. He did not know what lot 14a was; was it a church, or a town, or simply a part of the bare veld? Then again, in regard to the line from Dalton with the terminus near One House Farm. Here they were asked to spend large sums of money for the construction of railways simply to carry water to wattle plantations. He would very strongly oppose this expenditure, because it was very difficult for him to understand where the necessity arose, except that the line was in the constituency of that very devoted adherent of the Government, the member for Umvoti. Again, one reason for the new line at Kroonstad was that it passed over a coalfield that had not yet been opened up, but it placed Durban in a very much more important position as to the distance between Durban and Klerksdorp, in fact a reduction of over 100 miles. Therefore, this line would place Durban in a much better position as regards the trade with the Transvaal. He was not opposing this line, but he would like to inform his hon. friend that he was going to have trouble with regard to the rates, because they were very much more considerable from Durban than from Port Elizabeth. He thought that he had shown, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Board, that these proposed new lines demanded very close scrutiny. (Hear, hear.) It certainly ought to be the policy of the Administration to build lines so that they would develop the utmost stretch of country. If that was not so they simply created burdens upon the people, and prevented the development of country that needed development.

said he was generally in favour of an extension of the railways, and was pleased to see there was to be a reduction in the cost of construction. The Minister could not be expected to satisfy everybody, But had the Minister thoroughly examined all the proposed lines? It appeared to the speaker that some of the lines could not be justified. The Minister had referred in a somewhat deprecatory manner to the suggested line from Ermelo to Standerton, though farming was flourishing in that district. Perhaps the statistics would help to change the opinion of the Minister. The speaker expressed his satisfaction at the fact that the Government had not agreed to lay down more narrow gauge lines. At the point where such lines joined the main lines it became necessary to un-load and re-load the goods, and that was not to the advantage of the goods themselves. Personally he had handed in a petition last year requesting that a line be constructed from Ermelo to Standerton, as it was most necessary in the interests of Carolina, Barberton, Lydenburg, and Swaziland. It was to be regretted that the Railway Board had not reported on the lines which it had been decided not to construct, and he would particularly have liked to see a report on the line from Ermelo to Standerton. The Minister had promised such a report, but the speaker had not yet received it. Railways ought to be laid down for the development of the country, and for no other purpose. When he had urged the construction of the Ermelo-Standerton line last year, the Administration had recommended the laying down of another line from Zandspruit via Amersfoort and Morgenzon to Bethal. Who suggested that line? No petition had been received asking for it. If they built the Wakkerstroom line, that from Ermelo to Standerton would never be built. It was stated in favour of the last-mentioned line that the use of coal would take the place of kraal manure as fuel, but that report was based on stale information. Coal was now being used everywhere, and manure was only required for the land. Coal required for Standerton had to be carried 285 miles from Johannesburg, whilst the real distance was only 63 miles. From the agricultural point of view, too, the proposed line was not the best. Between Ermelo and Standerton every inch of ground could be turned to use. There were a good many sheep in that district, which had to be conveyed every year to the winter veld. The best winter veld was in Swaziland, Barberton, and Lydenburg, and railway lines ought to be so constructed as to enable trek farmers to make use of them. The Provincial Council in the Transvaal had taken a good step in passing an Ordinance relating to roads, but if the roads were fenced, the position of the trek farmers became impossible. Very little was being done for farmers who trekked with their sheep, notwitstanding the fact that the wool industry was so important. The farmers would certainly make use of railways whenever possible for the purpose of trekking, but now the best line for that purpose was not to be built. They were still importing large quantities of butter and cheese, and it was very desirable therefore that the dairy industry here should be encouraged. There was a dairy at Standerton established by the Government, which was greatly valued by the public. The public should, however, be provided with facilities for sending cream to the factory there. At present the farmers in Carolina and Ermelo had to send their cream nearly 300 miles by rail, as a result of which it diminished in value. The farmers were in that way discouraged, and the factory would prove to be a failure. There had been a good deal of talk last year on the subject of irrigation works. A lot of water was lost from the Vaal River, and there was plenty of scope for irrigation works, but such works were not being constructed. If a railway line were built from Ermelo to Standerton, it would run through its whole course in the neighbourhood of the Vaal River. A line from Ermelo to Standerton was also desirable in the interests of the Defence Force, because it would be desirable in the interests of that Force to have direct connection with Delagoa Bay, seeing that Delagoa would in future certainly be regarded as a principal point for defence purposes. The line from Ermelo to Standerton would also bring the Free State into closer connection with Lourenco Marques. It was a good thing that Wakkerstroom was to be developed by means of a railway. He had suggested last year that they should build a line from Zandspruit to Morgenzon and a line from Ermelo to Standerton, but the Government said there was no money. But now it was proposed to build a much more difficult line. A certain number of persons at Bethal had protested, by means of a petition to the Administration, against the building of a line from Zandspruit to Bethal. The Minister had still time to amend his Bill, and to include the Ermelo-Standerton line in his programme. If the hon. member for Barberton had not resigned, he would certainly have supported the speaker in his views. The speaker would not propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, but it would certainly have to be amended. If the Ermelo-Standerton line were not constructed, he saw no hope of satisfying his constituents, and the Minister would have to come and do it. The speaker was as anxious as anybody else to develop the country, but only such lines should be built as were in the true interest of the country. It was in that interest that the Ermelo-Standerton line was required.

said, from the dead state of the House, they could take it that there was no great objection to the Bill. He was very pleased to see that the Minister was going to develop the country with a system of light railways. Taking the Bill as a whole, it was a very satisfactory one. Of course, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had tried to level criticism against the Carnarvon-Calvinia line, but the people there were highly satisfied with the Minister’s proposal. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had given the House a very wrong lead, and he (Mr. Watermeyer) did not think the hon. member was speaking otherwise than through his hat. (Laughter.) The only case the hon. member could make against the railway was that it would only serve one particular interest. He (Mr. Watermeyer) took strong exception to that. For years they had been agitating for railway extension to the North-West, and the only answer they had was that the only thing they could produce was grain, and it was no use sending that to the south, as there was no market there for it. In recent years a particular interest had been producing grain in the Zaak River, and it was felt that if these people were to meet with success then their market lay to the east and to the north. Therefore, all of them in the North-Western districts had come to the conclusion that the first point for consideration was access to the market for the produce in the north. Hon. members who did not know the district found fault with the small area available for cultivation along the Zaak River, but it should not be overlooked that other districts were increasing their production. The hon. member for Cape Town had stated that last year the district had no harvest, but from his (Mr. Watermeyer’s) experience, he could say that but once in every ten years was there any falling off in the harvest to any great extent, that being due to the fact that about every ten years South Africa suffered from drought. Great attention had been paid to water conservation, and the growth of cereals, and now access to a market was urgently needed. For the first few years the railway would serve a large area which at present was drawing its supplies from that centre. He took exception to the statement that the area was going to produce only 500,000 bags of wheat per annum.

The land between the Zaak and the Fish Rivers, which was irrigated only by the overflow of the rivers, was capable of producing wheat. Of recent years people had been going in for dry farming, and that did not require the country to be flooded with water. Under that system a rainfall of ten inches per annum was considered adequate, and they could look forward to the near future to such an enormous development that the railway would pay its way. He did not deny, how ever, that a railway following other routes would pass through good country.

Better.

Although I agree that the surrounding country is perfectly good, we must not forget that all places in the area between the main line and the proposed main line will, when the latter is built, be within fifty miles of a railway. When you look to the North and see the huge area to be served by this proposed route, then you see that it is the best from the point of view of development. There may be parts of the country through which the railway runs which are not good.

Purely sheep country.

said that the hon. member wished to make out that it would be just as well to bring a railway from the south first. He (Mr. Watermeyer) agreed that their development was to come from the south, and that the district would depend on the harbour of Cape Town for its development, and that it was essential that they should have a connection with the south. But they could not forget that a large amount of money had been put into the production of cereals, and, therefore, it was their first duty to serve the wheat-growing districts. The Minister of Railways rather Over-stated the case when he said that all their market was in the north. Cape Town was very much dependent on them for its mutton—(hear, hear)—and it would be a market for their wool. That fact would be an incentive to the hon. member for Cape Town to see that a line to the south was not long delayed. He felt that they were within reach of what had been for many years the view of the people of the North-Western districts of the Cape Province, they had a huge tract of country in the north, the produce from which would always find a ready market. He felt that when this railway was connected north and south, that instead of a loss of £27,000, as estimated, it would be a good paying line. He thought they would find that the Cinderella of the Cape would he one of the fairest jewels in railway construction progress in the Cape Province.

said he was glad to see a return to sanity on the part of the railway administration with regard to the gauge of the lines to be constructed. He said he thought it was in the Cape Province that the first departure from the standard gauge took place, and the infection spread to the Province of Natal. He hoped that when the rolling stock of the little railways was worn out they would be built on the 3 ft. 6 in basis. He congratulated the Minister in dealing with the rolling stock as a whole. It was wise and well to develop the country by railways as cheaply as possible, but when the Minister spoke of reducing the cost of construction by reducing the number of sleepers per mile, and other things, he hoped he would not overlook the fact that the running of traffic over the lines would involve expenditure by-and-by. A cheap railway might not be a cheap railway in the long run. He saw that the Government proposed to relieve the Sea Point Municipality of an unfortunate bargain, and he hoped it might be possible for the Government to experiment by turning this Sea Point line into an electric railway. He thought it was admirably adapted for such an experiment. Dealing with the Hlobane proposals, he pointed out that through the construction of the company’s line the Natal railway and harbour authorities had derived considerable benefit, because they got all the coal they could take at a very low figure. The proposal to build an alternate line was a somewhat unfortunate circumstance, and he trusted that it might be possible by negotiation to get over the difficulty which the Minister had referred to, because it would be something like a scandal if the Government were to build another line and deprive the company of advantages to which they were entitled. He was glad to see the Kroonstad-Vierfontein line included in these proposals, because it was one of those lines that would be of benefit to the whole country. In building light railways, the Minister, he thought, should see that they were not built too cheaply, because the weight of the engines and rolling stock had considerably increased of late years, and the lines must-be strong enough to stand the strain if they were to confer the full benefit upon the country.

said the clearest proof for the necessity of the line from Bethal to Wakkerstroom was the fact that the Government were going to build the line without being asked for it. It also clearly showed that the Government were awake to the requirements of the country. He could not quite follow the argument of the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts), who had held that the Ermelo-Standerton line would be to the benefit of areas running miles away from the line. As regarded the line now proposed, he pointed out that this line would for a long distance run along the Vaal River, and along the same course as the suggested Ermelo-Standerton line. It was not right for the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts) to have spoken as he had done. Apparently he wanted Standerton to have four lines, and Bethal none. Last year a deputation had waited on the Minister, at which many of the people of Ermelo, Vrede, and Standerton were present. Mr. Collins urged the building of the Ermelo-Standerton line, and General Brits wanted the line built in order to convey sheep to the winter veld, whilst Mr. Grobler spoke in the interests of farming. They were not building lines for the conveyance of sheep to the winter veld, but in order to carry farm produce to market. If they built the Ermelo-Standerton line beside the Vaal River—which was in flood every summer—they would have to build a bridge at every railway station, and how much money would that cost? The Agricultural Society at Bethal was in favour of the best line, namely, that which was proposed by the Government. So far as members of the Defence Force were concerned, they should not go by rail, but ride on horseback. The proposed line would run about 30 miles between the Johannesburg-Natal line and the Johannesburg-Piet Retief line, and from Bethal it would proceed direct along the borders of Standerton Ermelo. He was in favour of the line proposed by the Government.

spoke strongly in support of the Bethal-Volksrust line, and said he could not see how the proposed line knocked the Ermelo Standerton on the head. The first line would run north and south, whilst the other would be from east to west. As regarded the petition presented by the hon. member for Standerton, he (Mr. Du Toit) pointed out that last year he had presented a petition signed by some two thousand people asking for the extension of the Bethal line to connect Durban and Pietersburg, so that the farmers along that line could trek to Secucuniland and Olifants River. That district would then be developed. And the line now proposed went in the right direction. Then the hon. member had spoken as if the whole of the Defence Force had to be taken about the country on trains. Surely these young men could travel on horseback. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Du Toit) was quite pleased with the proposals of the Minister of Railways and he was extremely gratified to see that the Minister was prepared to start on a small scale. The railway could not exist on the conveyance of cream. The people of Middelburg were well satisfied with light railways. He could not support the hon. member for Standerton.

deprecated the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts). Standerton had a number of lines as it was, and it was not fair for the hon. member to grudge other parts having one single line. The hon. member ought to take up an attitude of “live and let live.” They should not only think of themselves, but of the whole country. (Hear, hear.) Wakkerstroom and Amersfoort had no line at all, and the people in those places had to ride for days in order to get to a railway. He was entirely in favour of the proposed line, which would do a great deal of good.

said he wished to touch upon a particular point, which might be described as parochial, but this was one of the occasions when members had to bear in mind the interests of the districts in which they lived. Representatives coming from the Witwatersrand had on previous occasions of the kind pointed out that their interests had not been considered as much as they felt they should be. There was one section of the Witwatersrand which he thought deserved consideration. That was the section to the east. It might be represented to the Minister from the far eastern districts of the Rand that that portion of the country between Springs, Heidelberg and Angelo was exceedingly badly served by railways. The mining industry was growing considerably in that direction, and under present circumstances there was a large amount of traffic from the Nigel Mine, which had to go by road a considerable number of miles. It had been stated that if Heidelberg, Nigel and Springs were connected with the Witbank line, which would only require 3½ extra miles of construction, there would be a considerable trade opened up in that direction. He hoped that in next year’s programme the Minister would seriously consider the interests of the district to which he had alluded, more especially as it appeared to him that there was a reasonable prospect of the lines which he had mentioned paying their way and paying fairly well.

said he wished to bring to the notice of the House a paragraph which appeared in the report laid before them by the Railway Board, regarding the question of local authorities constructing and maintaining such roads as are necessary for the transport of wool and other produce to railway stations. He thought that recommendation was a very fair proposal. When a railway opened up a district; it was only proper that the locality should undertake to do something in the direction indicated by the report. He had expected to find some clause in the Bill dealing with the duties of public or local bodies in providing approach roads to stations. But finding no reference to the subject in the Bill, he fully expected the Minister in his speech that afternoon to have referred to it. It had been pointed out to the House the great advantages which had arisen from the railway schemes not having been able to be fully carried out last year—that a great saving in the cost had been effected. The statement had caused some of them to reflect that it would, perhaps, be as well to give the present proposals a year’s rest—(laughter)—when a further saving might result. Referring to the question of new lines, he said, if they looked at the map, they would agree that it was a case of giving to those who already had. The western side of the railway up to the North was practically undeveloped, while on the eastern side they could see railways in all directions. It might be an enormous advantage to keep adding to these lines, but while they had a large area in the country calling out for new railways, it seemed to him a gross injustice to the undeveloped portion to ignore their claims. (Hear, hear.) He strongly objected to the route proposed for the Kuruman railway. The right direction to that place, he maintained, was by the way of Barkly West. A railway from Kimberley to Barkly would be a paying line, while all those in the Bill were to be run at a loss. What was worse still, the district would be made to pay for the department’s lack of judgment in planning the route, as the deficiency was going to be a charge against the profits made by the other district lines.

said that if the Minister were in another realm altogether, not a mundane one, he would not succeed in satisfying everyone with any railway proposals that he could bring forward—(hear, hear)—but it did not follow, because that was the case, that he was altogether happy or altogether justified in the proposals which he had laid before the House now. (Hear, hear.) The difficulty they had in considering these proposals was that they did not know on what grounds they were based. Last year they had statements placed before them, respectively, on the 24th April and 23rd May in regard to expenditure on capital and betterment. Those estimates in the one month that elapsed went up by £250,000. It showed an extraordinary method of making their estimates when such a discrepancy as that could take place in the period of only one month. He noticed this year a striking omission from the report of the Board. Last year the report of the Board was signed by the Board, and, of course, addressed to the Minister of Railways. They had the spectacle of the Chairman of the Railway Board, who happened, of course, to be the Minister of Railways, signing himself as “Your obedient servant”—to himself, of course. (Laughter.) That appeared to have been too much for the present Railway Board, because he saw that this year they had not signed the report at all apparently.

There is a signature at the foot of page 12.

I see; it is even better this year. Last year we had in the report of the Board the Chairman and members addressing the Minister of Railways as “Your obedient servants.” This year we have the Chairman of the Railway Board addressing the Minister of Railways, himself, as “Your obedient servant.” He apparently has very great respect for himself in the other capacity. Proceeding, Sir L. Phillips said he would like to know why this year the other members of the Board were left out. Was it that there was some difference of opinion as to the contents of this document; or that a new practice had occurred, by which the Board, which they, on that side, thought ought to be endowed with larger powers than it had at present, was being more and more extinguished out of the service? That would be the natural inference. He thought the House had every reason to feel some doubt about the proposed lines and the cost of the proposed lines placed before them to-day in face of the fact that the very Board which was recommending these proposals to-day was the same Board which recommended proposals on a very much more expensive basis only last year.

Which report were they to accept as being the report upon which this House was justified in placing some importance? Were they to take the report of the Board in which last year they were recommended to build a line of 222½ miles at a cost of £1,133,000, or the report of the same board this year which proposed to build almost the identical line, 213 miles, at a cost of £741,000. They required some very full and explicit reasons for that change. The Railway Board consisted of experts, and if these experts in railway construction and management last year recommended them to build a line at a cost of £5,000 per mile, they certainly should have given this year some more ample reason than they could find in this document for this change of policy. They must assume that some very cogent reasons had been brought to their notice in the meantime to induce them to make these changes. He thought the House had very grave reasons for asking for more explicit reasons for the construction of new lines. He proposed at a later stage to go more fully into the several proposals, but as it was now five minutes to six, and the new rule in regard to the Estimates came into operation, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

It does not come into effect yet.

Oh yes, it does; we told you that last week.

It being five minutes to six o’clock p.m.,

stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted by the House on the 2nd instant, he would now adjourn the debate.

The debate was adjourned until Thursday next.

called the attention of the House to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements which had dealt with the salaries of Parliamentary officials

moved, in order to put the matter in order: That the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements under this vote be adopted, and that the scales of salary and the item “third assistant committee clerk” be inserted in the Estimates.

moved an amendment that the first report be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration. Proceeding, he said they had heard a great deal about extravagance. He thought the House should set an example in the matter of economy. To his mind, some of the recommendations were excessive. For instance, they proposed that the Assistant Clerk of the House should have his salary raised by stages up to a thousand a year. He was talking impersonally about the matter, he was referring only to the office. He thought a salary like that was not paid in any other legislative centre for a similar office. When all was said and done, the work was excessively strenuous, but it only went on for five or six months in the year, and he thought that if it rose to a maximum of £750 it would be sufficient.

supported the motion of the hon. member for Denver. He said the recommendations had been carefully gone into by the Select Committee. He did not think the Assistant Clerk’s work was entirely confined to the duration of the session, and he did not think the salary excessive. If the House adopted the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, the effect would be because he objected to one or two salaries, many other changes which were clearly deserved would be delayed for another year.

said he would like to suggest that the Minister of Public Works, who was a member of the Committee should explain to the House how the report came to be drawn up. He could not ask Mr. Speaker, who was the Chairman of the Committee.

explained that he was not present at the meeting.

said he would like to know whether the Government were in favour of the report. In his opinion it should not have been left to the Opposition to move the adoption.

said he was hoping for some information from the committee, but they had been singularly reticent about their reasons for the recommendations. He did not want to speak against the increases, it would look very invidious to do so. Still they had to go into the merits of those cases, and he dared say that was done by the committee. The Clerk Assistant before the date of Union had a salary of £500, he was now getting £650, and the recommendation was to make the maximum from £750 to £1,000. The Sergeant-at-Arms drew the same salary as at the date of Union, and it was proposed to give him £500, rising to £600, and so on. He would have thought some member of the Select Committee would have explained to the House why these increases were recommended, when large increases had already been given since Union. But no such explanation had been given.

moved that the further consideration of the vote stand over. He (Mr. Botha) came to the House prepared to vote for these increases provided he got a reasonable explanation. Naturally they looked to the Minister in charge to give an explanation, but they could not look to Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Minister said he knew nothing about it. How could the Government expect hon. members to make up their minds on a very important matter like this without some explanation from the hon. Minister in charge.

arose on a matter of procedure. He thought it was quite contrary to their procedure that a private member should move an increase of expenditure. Surely it was for the Government to move anything which necessitated increased expenditure. It was not open to a private member to get up and move a serious increase to expenditure on the Estimates. He thought they might very well let that clause stand over, as suggested by the hon. member for Bloemfontein.

pointed out that the matter had been referred to Committee by the Minister of Finance.

said it had been referred to the Committee by the Government, but it required that somebody should move that that Committee adopt the report. Only the Minister of the Crown in that Committee could move the increased expenditure.

said he was surprised that provision had not been made in these Estimates for the increases recommended. It was some considerable time since the Committee had considered this matter. The hon. Minister had pointed to the large increase which had been made to officials since Union. He knew of one—the Sergeant-at-Arms— who was not receiving even under the Committee’s recommendations the salary to which he was justly entitled as an old official of the Transvaal Parliament. According to a resolution there he was entitled to full salary, and he was getting less to-day than if he had remained in his former service. What would be the good of appointing Select Committees if, after they had done their best, they were to be treated in that manner? Members would become chary of serving on Select Committees.

asked if it was competent for the Committee to consider that question without a message from His Excellency.

It is a matter entirely for this House.

explained why he moved the adoption of the report. He was grievously disappointed, at the attitude of the Government over this matter. The reports were presented to the Government long before they came in front of the Select Committee. He thought the Minister was treating this matter with extreme callousness. The recommendations of the Select Committee were based on what prevailed in other branches of the Civil Service. An able, a lucid, and an impartial report had been furnished to the Committee by the Clerk of the House. The report stated that so far as the House of Assembly staff was concerned the actual working hours were longer than those which prevailed in the Civil Service generally, and had exceeded their official time by 452 hours. In spite of the increased work the staff exceeded that of the late Cape House of Assembly by only two men. Every man had to be an expert in his own particular work, otherwise he could not get through it with the expedition and accuracy that were essential. The scale of salaries was fixed by Mr. Speaker, the scale prevailing in the public service being taken as a guide as far as possible. Continuing, he said the matter was referred to a Select Committee, which reported on March 27.

Cut it short.

Go on.

continued to read the report, and then said he would delay the reading of the remainder of the memorandum until a later stage.

suggested that the vote stand over until the memorandum had been printed and circulated.

said that on page 597 of the Votes and Proceedings he found that the Minister of Finance moved that this Report of Internal Arrangements Committee should be referred to the Committee of Supply. Dealing with the increases, he pointed out that these covered periods between three and ten years, and the salaries did not jump up at once. His view was that they wanted the best men, and to retain the best men they must pay them well. On the technical point he thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth must consider that this was a recommendation which the Government favoured.

said it was something to find seven-eighths of the Ministry there that night. (Laughter.) On previous occasions when the Estimates were being discussed there were generally only one or two members of the Ministry, but notwithstanding the fact that they were there in such large numbers it was curious that not one of them was brave enough to get up and tell the House what the policy of the Government was on the motion before the House. He thought the House was indebted to his hon. friend for placing the report before the House. Under the circumstances, if the Government could not make up its mind, the House would have to make up the mind of the Government. He gathered that his hon. friend, the member for Cape Town, Central, was not so much against the increases as the scale in one or two cases. The whole of the increase recommended by the committee was only a matter of £272 as far as that House was concerned. He was strongly in favour of the principle of the scale. It was in the interests of the House that the salaries of the officers of the House should be discussed every session.

When they came to consider the onerous duties of some of the officers of the House it would be seen that the salaries were by no means excessive. Under these circumstances he said he would be glad if his hon.: friend would withdraw. Nobody who had given close attention to the House and the continued and regular strain upon the officers of the House, but would realise that the work was performed in a most admirable manner. The Librarian and Clerk of the Papers had to sit sometimes to one o’clock in the morning to attend to their duties. Under these circumstances he thought they might adopt the report.

regretted that the leader of the Opposition should try to lend a political colour to this matter, which could certainly not do any good. The first thing which had happened here was that the hon. gentleman’s first lieutenant had moved that this vote be referred back to the committee. He (the Prime Minister) thought no one more appreciated the work of the officers of the House than the Government, and the Government did not object to these increases, especially not after the explanation which had been given.

said the complaint he had to make was that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had been unable to supply the information which he should have been able to give. That was the purpose which he had in moving his motion. As a member of the Select Committee it was the duty of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to give them the required information. He had no objection, after the information which had been given by the hon. member for Denver, to withdraw his motion.

said that evidently the Government had got their ear to the floor to find out which way the cat would jump. (Laughter.) It was a very pleasant thing to pay out money, especially the taxpayers’ money. He was not against this increase, but what he was against was the excessive maximum. Take the assistant clerk. He was getting more than most magistrates in the country. Out of the total number of magistrates there were only four that came up to a maximum of £1,000, 22 were getting a maximum of £300, 44 a maximum of £700. The majority attained a maximum of £600. The question was, would anyone say that a magistrate had not a more responsible position than the Assistant Clerk of that House?

pointed out that the clerk assistant would take ten years before he came to the maximum rate. He was very glad to see the Prime Minister accepted this report, and they would see that the hon. member for Cape Town was on this occasion hopelessly wrong.

said he supported the hon. member in his motion that this be referred back to the committee.

wanted to know why it was that the hon. Minister of Public Works did not sit upon the committee, and why it was that he sat dumb and offered no advice upon the question. It was necessary that members in this House should know exactly what were the duties of each of these officials.

said that the hon. member must know that a Minister who had recently joined the Cabinet had sometimes to serve on more than one committee at a time. It was not for him to rise and inform the House as to the reasons which actuated the committee for recommending these increases. Surely the least that could be expected of the gentleman who moved the increase was that he should give his reasons. He (the Minister) recognised that this was not a matter for the Government at all— (Opposition laughter)—because this House rightly had always been extremely jealous of any interference on the part of the Government with the appointment of officers in its service. He agreed with a great deal of what the hon. member had said. At the same time, he realised this danger that the House might be likely to deal more favourably with the officers of the House who were so often brought under their notice than they would be with the salaries of officers whom they never saw. He should vote against the motion.

said he did not know whether the Minister would, later on, move a reduction in the salary of Mr. Speaker, because it was under Mr. Speaker’s guidance that they took this very unconstitutional action of which he accused the committee. He (Mr. Meyler) agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that this was an attempt to place the members on that side of the House in a very invidious position in moving these increases, and that afterwards the finger of scorn might be pointed at them if they opposed any increases. The servants of that House whom they came into contact with were to get very small increases, mainly from £5 to £12 per year, and really it did seem shameful to sit there and listen to a man who drew no less than £250 a month raising these objections to men to whom it was suggested that they should give an increase of £5 per annum. He wondered that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had the face to see these men standing there and working hard and to criticise a £5 a year increase. He drew £8 6s. 8d. a day, and yet he did not approve of giving these men an increase of £5 per annum.

said he was not against the increase, but when they looked at the necessity for economy he held that they should be extremely careful. He was, therefore, unable to agree with the recommendations contained in the report, and agreed with the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that the report be referred back to the committee. An increase for particular officials could be justified, but not an increase for all.

said he objected to the Select Committee doing everything, and he objected to the Government doing everything. They were considering the salaries of servants of that House, and he wanted to see the matter decided by the House, and decided once for all. He objected to the matter going back to any Select Committee.

The motion that the vote stand over was withdrawn.

The motion to refer the report back to the committee was negatived.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Denver was agreed to.

The vote as amended was agreed to.

moved the adoption of the second part of the Select Committee’s report.

The motion was agreed to.

said he would put the total amount of the vote, which would now be £10,503.

said he thought some attention should be paid to the item of deficit on refreshment room, £500. The House would, he thought, agree that this was extremely satisfactory and that Parliament should be able to do something better. He believed it was generally agreed that they got the worst luncheon in Cape Town in the House of Assembly. (Hear, hear, and dissent.)

moved the deletion of this item. He said he saw that in anticipation of a deficit in the refreshment room, they were proposing to vote a subsidy of £500. He had always been of the same view since this vote first came up, that if members of that House wanted refreshments in the House they should be made to pay for them, and that they were placed in an invidious position when they asked for a subsidy to that extent towards the refreshment room. As his hon. friend had said, perhaps they might put a small tax on some other amusement in that House. Either they should cut down the scale of refreshments or put on an increased price. He had always thought it was a mistake that they should make the House of Assembly compete with people outside, who had to pay heavy licences.

said he would like to move the deletion of the previous item, “Hansard, £6,000.” He said he had not changed his opinion regarding the uselessness of that volume. In his opinion it was a waste of money and gave very little satisfaction in the House, not on account of the length of the reports, but because of the unreliability of the matter which appeared as alleged speeches of members of that House. When hon. members get into their constituencies and were faced with what they were supposed to have said they would be ashamed of themselves. If it were necessary to have some sort of official record of what was said in that House they should certainly have something much more reliable than at present, and they could get that at very little more cost than they were paying under the present method. It struck him that the vote was very much in the nature of a subsidy, and he thought the hon. Minister should give some assurance to that House that he would make some provision in the future for a better record or merely do nothing at all in the matter. Figures were given wrongly, and there were misprints which made a laughing stock of hon. members. He was not referring to the ordinary newspaper reports for people who read them took them at their proper worth.

supported the motion, and said that he hoped that since last year some improvement would have been made. In his opinion the present arrangement was most unsatisfactory from every standpoint. It was unsatisfactory from the point of view of the gentlemen in the gallery—as unsatisfactory as it could be. When they saw their reputed work on the following morning they must wonder who took down those speeches that had been recorded in the newspaper. He was frequently at a loss to find where the real speeches were at all. Many of the speeches which were best reported were never delivered in the House; they were created somewhere else. They were certainly never delivered in the House. The reports were also very unsatisfactory from the standpoint of hon. members of that House. Personally, he did not care whether he was reported or not, but when he was reported he wanted the report to be what he said, and not what other people thought he should have said. He did not know whether Reuter’s were subsidised, but he found that Reuter’s reports were better than they found in certain newspapers in Cape Town. They might be told that they had a chance to correct their speeches or amplify them, but when they got back to their constituencies and they were faced with what purported to be their speeches as reported in the morning papers, and when they pointed to the Hansard, there was a suspicion that they had touched it up, and the people would rather abide by what had appeared in the paper than the Hansard report. Proceeding, he said that the taxpayers of the country paid out large sums to get something reliable, but they did not get it. He was referring particularly to the English reports. They had there a subsidy paid for very biassed and partisan reports. He had found on many occasions, and he read very carefully what was reported, that again and again speeches were reported with the most obvious party bias. Whole sentences which ought to be in, in order to give the full sense of what had been said, were deliberately left out. He knew it was very difficult sometimes, particularly when hon. members did not speak very clearly, for the reporters to catch what was said, and he knew how difficult it was for people not fully acquainted with a subject to condense and keep the connection of thought, but it should not be impossible to keep the connection so as to give something like a sensible statement from start to finish. Efforts were directly put forth to discredit what a large number of hon. members in that House said. He did not mean as far as he, personally, was concerned. They told the worst of lies—half the truth. They should have a reliable, correct and honest statement or nothing at all, and that was what they did not get. It was not value for the money, it was not fair to the public, and the sooner it was wiped out the better.

said he did not go so far as the hon. member who had just spoken. The hon. member said that when he took the morning paper up he could not believe that he had really said what was reported, but the Hansard was the only method they had of finding out how much time was taken up by those hon. gentlemen. They had taken up one-seventh of the time of the House, and he thought the Hansard should remain, if only as a check upon hon. members.

said he would like to ask the hon. members on the cross benches how they would deal with the position that would be created if the motion was carried. It had teen agreed that the Hansard should be carried on under the present arrangement in order to save expenditure, and no doubt if more money was spent it would be more completely done. In the meantime, if they wished to save expenditure, they ought to recognise that they were dealing with the matter from a common-sense point of view. Continuing, Mr. Wiltshire said he wished to refer to another matter. In another place, the reading and writing rooms were open at different and much longer hours, these hours being very convenient for the members. Why could not the same conveniences be arranged in the House of Assembly? In the Natal Parliament, where they had nothing like comparatively so large a staff of servants, there was a better establishment and far better conveniences than obtained here. When the hour came for closing the Union House, the attendants were in so great a hurry to escape the scene of their daily toil, that members were put to great inconvenience. He recognised that the staff had a great deal of responsible work, and some of it they did very well.

thought the country was experiencing another crisis at this moment. (Laughter.) If the proposition of the hon. member for Commissioner-street were carried, these speeches would not appear in a permanent form. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Roodepoort had stated that some of the best speeches that appeared in the morning paper had never been made in that House, while he further stated that whole sentences were deliberately left out. That was a very serious charge, and if he seriously meant what he said—(An HON. MEMBER: “He does not”)—long before today an inquiry should have been held into the matter. Let the committee save the country from this crisis, concluded Mr. Nathan; it was even more serious than some of the things that they had been going through lately in Parliament (Laughter.)

said he hoped the hon. member would not vex himself into a fury. (Laughter.) After all, they could not help themselves, as the Hansard contract was for four years, one of which had expired. He thought the best thing would be for hon. members to do as he did, and never look at Hansard— (laughter)—for then they would never see the defects of their own eloquence. (Renewed laughter.) As to the refreshment room—

Much more important. (Laughter.)

said there, again, the House could not help itself. The session was far advanced, and if there was any deficit, that probably had been incurred by this time, and they could not refuse to pay it. Whether they should refuse to serve the public with light refreshments was another question, and it, could be gone into by the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements.

said he had read the Hansard contract, which required that certain things should be done, and if they were not done the contract was violated and might be repudiated. He was quite confident that if they took a few independent gentlemen and asked them to compare certain speeches with the requirements of the contract, they would say the contract had been broken, and if the men in charge of it were intelligent men, he said deliberately broken. He had been to the fountain head, and in the House was a document admitting that the charges he made were well founded. A portion of one of the speeches of the hon. member for Jeppe—a very important statement concerning figures—was omitted, and when he (Mr. Haggar) said these were left out, the parties guilty of violating the contract admitted that his charges were right. In conclusion, the hon. member said he would like to inform the hon. member for Clanwilliam that they on those benches represented men, and not broad acres and jackals. (Laughter.)

asked as to who was responsible for the books that were in the library.

The (Library Committee.

said there were books in the library that should not be in a Parliamentary library at all. If some hon. members wanted cheap hashes of social scandal, let them go and buy these books.

said that if his hon. friend took more interest in the library, he would put down on the selection list what books he thought were best.

said he was complaining about the books that were there. There was a book by Lord Rossmore—

Oh!

Surely we don’t want that sort of book in the library.

Well, Lord Rossmore is intimately connected with this country— by marriage. (Laughter.)

said that hon. members were honorary members of the South African Public Library, and by stepping across the road and asking the librarian of that excellent institution, they could get any book that they wanted. He thought that the Parliamentary library should be more of a reference library, and suggested a committee might deal with the collection of Parliamentary papers and returns not only from British Colonies, but Great Britain.

said that in discussing what novels should be placed in the library, hon. members had forgotten the very important matter that had been brought up by the hon. member for Commissioner-street, and that was the question of the deletion of £6,000 for Hansard—so called. The Minister of Finance said there was a contract. They knew there was a contract. They had pointed out the Hansard produced as an argument against perpetuating that Hansard. As had been pointed out by the hon. member for Roodepoort, the contract had been broken, and broken very badly indeed, and he questioned very much whether there was a single member in that House, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Von Brandis, who did not agree. He could quite understand the hon. member for Von Brandis not wanting it. If there had been no Hansard in existence they would have heard no more of the information given by the hon. member for Von Brandis to the agriculturists on the other side of the House as to the desirability of growing violets—(laughter)—but only as a side line. (Renewed laughter.) This matter of Hansard was a very important matter indeed, when they remembered that the people of the country read the reports contained in the “Cape Times” the following morning with the knowledge that they became Hansard at the end of the year. As the hon. member for Roodepoort had pointed out, whole sentences were left out of the reports. But they were referred to in a suggestive way in that interesting column “Notes in the House”—(laughter)—and an entirely wrong view was given to the country. He was not one who could complain of having his speeches polished or elaborated by subeditors or anybody else, and in proof of that he would read to the committee one extract from the reports. If they referred to page 291 of Hansard they would find this reported: “Mr. Madeley made some reference to Socialism, and then moved the adjournment of the debate.” That was the Hansard report of his speech. They could not say that his speech had been elaborated, but certainly if he was expected to perpetuate the heinous crime of speaking about Socialism, he wanted to be accused by someone who knew something about it. He was not particularly keen on having his speeches reported if they were not reported verbatim; the report should be a correct report, and if they could not give a correct report they should give no report at all.

said that a personal explanation was necessary. He fully understood the wrath of the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, but he would like to explain that little question about the violets. (Laughter.) Well, Sir, continued the hon. member, when I suggested violets I suggested something that would be of benefit to every farmer’s daughter, but I never heard the hon. member for Springs suggest anything that was any use to anybody. (Laughter and Hear, hear.)

complained about the apathy with which the motion for the deletion of the vote had been received. The reason was, he thought, that the contract was given to the newspapers representing the Nationalist and Unionist Parties. Of course, he quite understood that these papers were perfectly at liberty to make their comments upon the proceedings of members as interesting as they thought fit, but he contended that the reports were not correct. His attention had been called to a speech of his own, in which he alluded one day, with perhaps less respect than he generally showed, to his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West He called his speeches “eloquent trifles,” but the Minister would see how well these reports were done when he found that be was reported to have said that the speeches of the right hon. gentleman were “eloquent tripe,” (Loud laughter.)

The amendment was negatived.

withdrew his amendment.

The vote was agreed to.

moved that the items be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

On sub-head A, £6,924,

said he rose for the purpose of moving a reduction on page 23. He was extremely sorry that the Government had not taken the advice tendered that the salaries of Ministers should be fixed by statute, so that it should not be necessary to refer to these items year by year. The Act of Union provided for a certain number of Ministers, and surely the salaries of these Ministers should be fixed by Act of Parliament. Year after year the Government took no notice of this advice. He did not think there was a single example in either Great Britain or any of the other colonies where these salaries were not fixed by statute. So long as they dealt with these salaries in Hansard. (An Hon. Member: in the Estimates.) Well, his hon. friend would realise that they had been talking so long upon Hansard that he really forgot about the Estimates. (Laughter.) He hoped, however, the Government would allow these salaries to be settled finally in the way he suggested. What he rose for more particularly was to call attention to the manner in which the right hon. gentleman took this vote. He had in his hands a copy of the Estimates as originally introduced in the House. Last year he found they voted “Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, £4,000.” The Minister of Agriculture, as one of the Ministers of the State, drew a salary of £3,000, and as Prime Minister he had an extra allowance of £1,000. The intention originally was when the Estimates were introduced, that the Prime Minister, whoever he might be, drew £1,000 a year as a special allowance, and exactly the same allowance as other Ministers in whatever Department of State he held a portfolio, but since last year extraordinary changes had taken place. Just before the break-up of Parliament differences existed in the Government. One of the Ministers retired, and his hon. friend (General Smuts) then took over the department over which he now presided, viz., that of finance. Immediately after Parliament rose they found the extraordinary position of a Minister without Portfolio simply acting as Prime Minister and drawing a salary of £4,000 a year, whereas it was the intention of Parliament that the Minister should draw the bulk of his salary in connection with his portfolio and the other allowance as Prime Minister. His right hon. friend would remember that in the changes which were made the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Sauer) became Minister of Agriculture. Shortly after, owing to ill health, he went to Europe, and the Prime Minister, then Minister without Portfolio, acted as Minister of Agriculture. On the return of his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) from Europe, the Prime Minister handed over to him the temporary portfolio which he was conducting. During the period when his right hon. friend was Prime Minister without Portfolio they had a very interesting election in this country, when his hon. friend (Mr. Van der Reit) was returned as member for Albany. During that time the Prime Minister was not employed in any department of State, and they found that, although he was drawing the salary of a Minister with a portfolio, plus the allowance of Prime Minister, he was dodging about the country in an electioneering capacity. (Hear, hear.) Furthermore, during the conference of his party at Pretoria last year he asked to he relieved from office as president for the purpose of being able to go about the country. That was entirely a matter of party organisation. What they did object to was not because his right hon. friend sat there, but that the Prime Minister of this country should draw £4,000 a year, and be able, after the House rose, to resign his portfolio as Minister, and still draw that amount of money without being appointed to any particular department of State. When his right hon. friend went to Graham’s Town to assist in the election of the hon. member for Albany—(laughter)—he was in a difficult position, and it was impossible for him to give a direct lead to the country. He did hope that this House was going to lay down that it was not going to vote this amount of money to allow a Prime Minister who held office without portfolio to draw exactly the same remuneration as if he occupied a department of State and was Prime Minister as well. He should, therefore, move that the vote be reduced by £3,000 for the purpose of allowing the House definitely to vote £1,000 as the salary of the Prime Minister, whoever he might be, and the other amount to be taken for the Minister of Agriculture.

replied that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had referred to the desirability of removing that vexed question of Ministers’ salaries from the Parliamentary arena by embodying the salaries in an Act. There was no objection, as was said last year, to following that course, but the result would be that that practice, which was found so convenient in constitutional countries, that of moving the reduction of Ministerial salaries, would then become impossible. Once they settled the salaries by Act of Parliament they could not reduce them by a vote of that House. It was a question of convenience whether after all it was not better to leave those Ministerial salaries on their present footing so that the department might be attacked through the Minister. It was simply a question of procedure. With regard to the other part of his hon. friend’s speech, he clearly must have been under the impression that the Prime Minister had been without portfolio for part of the last 12 months, but as a matter of fact the Prime Minister had never been without portfolio since Union, and sometimes had held two, but never less than one. His hon. friend was one who assisted in the framing of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa, but he did not seem to know that the Prime Minister had never been without a portfolio. The first act of the Executive Council of the Union was to establish a department of State, and the first of those departments was that of the Prime Minister. (Ministerial cheers.) They had followed the example of Canada, where the department of the Prime Minister was a department by itself—a department of State—they had followed the same practice here in South Africa by Executive Council resolution and by Proclamation. That department of the Prime Minister was a department of State, and so long as his hon. friend occupied that office—so long as any gentleman in the Union of South Africa occupied the position of Prime Minister—he administered a department of State. That was the simple a b c of the law on that question. The Prime Minister occupied another portfolio also. He held the portfolio of Prime Minister and that of the Minister of Agriculture, and was paid, of course, only as the Prime Minister, and never as the Minister of Agriculture. His hon. friend thought the Prime Minister was paid £3,000 a year as Minister of Agriculture and £1,000 allowance as Prime Minister, but he thought it would now be plain to his hon. friend that he was paid as Prime Minister in the discharge of that portfolio, and the Department of Agriculture was simply an adjunct.

said his hon. friend was always very clever in drawing a red herring across the track, but if he would refer to the Estimates, they would find, “Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, £4,000.” He had been trying to convince the House that was not true. His (Sir T. W. Smartt’s) contention was that that vote was framed to cover both the department of Prime Minister and that of the Minister of Agriculture, and that the salary of the Minister of Agriculture had been fixed at £3,000, and the extra allowance was £1,000 for the Prime Minister. Subsequently the portfolio of the Minister of Agriculture was transferred to another Minister, who took it on the basis of £3,000 a year. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) Proceeding, the speaker said that, in that case, he took it that the hon. Minister who took it did so without remuneration. His point was, that it was not a good principle that the Prime Minister, who had practically no portfolio, should get the salary of a Minister, plus the salary of the Prime Minister. If he desired not to hold a portfolio, then the State should be relieved from payment of the extra amount.

expressed himself pained at the remarks of the leader of the Opposition. What had the hon. member done himself? When the Government of the hon. member had been upset, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had travelled about at the expense of the State, and addressed meetings. And now the same hon. member came and attacked the Prime Minister for having kept his salary when he had no portfolio. The remainder of the hon. member’s remarks were inaudible.

said it was about time they put a stop to fooling in that House, as they had something far more serious to do. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Finance had been quibbling. What did the Prime Minister administer? A staff of 11, including himself. The Prime Minister had no administrative work. A Prime Minister was supposed to hold a Portfolio, and be the first among the Ministers.

Supervise.

asked what Prime Minister, except that of Great Britain, was paid £4,000 a year for supervising. There was no parallel for a man drawing £4,000 a year for being Prime-Minister. The explanation of the Minister of Finance was a quibble. The Minister had quoted the National Convention, but the Minister knew perfectly well that if the National Convention had thought that this would happen, it would have taken very good care to have fixed this matter up very much more tightly. It was to his (Mr. Jagger’s) mind a monstrous shame, and a waste of public money. It was simply taking advantage of a quibble. It was never intended by Parliament that it should vote £4,000 a year to the Prime-Minister. Every member of the House thought, when they voted £4,000 a year the first time, that they were voting £3,000 to the right hon. gentleman as Minister of Agriculture and £1,000 as Prime Minister. It was a thorough-going quibble now to appropriate £4,000 a year to that particular office. The country ought to know clearly and well that the first Minister, for doing practically nothing, except supervising his colleagues, was receiving a salary which was not paid in any other country. He had absolutely no administrative work to do, and it was no wonder that we were getting extravagant.

said that while one clearly saw a certain amount of force in what had been contended, it was difficult to see how the Minister could achieve a happy means. He remembered hearing the strongest objections from the financial and administrative pundits at the Minister of Finance holding that Portfolio in conjunction with another Portfolio. He also had very clear recollections of hearing them say that the Portfolio of Agriculture would require the undivided attention of one Minister. He was not going to express an opinion upon that. But he did think that the Department of the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, should be divided in some way. He had not been able to find out precisely how the Minister of Justice was paid while he was holding the Portfolio of Agriculture. He suggested to the House that it should follow the example that was set in Canada, and pay a salary to the leader of the Opposition. He wanted to put this forward as a practical proposition of great value to the country. The leader of the Opposition was head of the possible alternative Government, and they should know, from the leader of the Opposition, what policy that alternative Government would follow. Supposing the country were plunged into a general election and the voter was asked to vote for the possible Ministry. He would find the hon. member for Fordsburg holding views on native labour almost similar to the views of hon. members on those benches. (Laughter.) Yet the voter would find him on the same platform with the hon. member for Germiston, who held precisely different views.

said that the hon. member must refer to the Vote.

I am asking Government to place on the Estimates a salary for the leader of the Opposition. (Cries of “Order.”) We have as much right to challenge the policy of hon. members sitting there as we have to challenge the policy of hon. members over there. This country is not only suffering from the Government, but one of the principal reasons why the Government is so bad is the weakness and insincerity of the Opposition. Who is going to tell us the policy of the Opposition? (Cries of “Order.”)

said the hon. member must refer to the Prime Minister’s Vote.

I am, sir (Laughter, and cries of “Order.”) Concluding, he said he thought they should have the opportunity of dealing not only with the policy of the Government, but with the policy of the Opposition.

said that the statements of the Minister of Finance had thrown a serious light on the matter, and shown that the Government had created a bogus department. There was no such thing as the Prime Minister’s Department. He administered nothing. In the old Cape Constitution an Act of Parliament laid down the duties and salaries of each Minister. When Mr. Rhodes took no Department, he took no pay. There was a somewhat similar state of affairs with regard to Dr. Jameson. They were not against the Prime Minister drawing a salary, but they were opposed to him drawing it in this way. As things were, the Government was taking money the taxpayer ought not to pay. What remained to them was to make it clear to the country that the funds were being wrongly appropriated and that a bogus department was being created, and that it was being created for the payment of a high salary to the Prime Minister.

entirely agreed with the statement that this was a bogus department, and the Minister of Finance knew it. The Minister of Finance on the Estimates held two portfolios. He drew a salary of £3,000 a year as Minister of Finance, but he drew no salary as Minister of Defence

I wish I could draw it.

I wish the Minister could, because I admire him for the work he does, but I admire him less when he gets up and makes these ingenious statements which entirely mislead the House. He would remind his hon. friend that when ten portfolios were being discussed in the Convention, Dr. Jameson suggested that the Prime Minister should draw a separate salary and hold no portfolio, but this did not meet the approval of the right hon. member for Victoria West. He supported the idea that the Prime Minister should hold a portfolio and draw his salary for that. This was simply a job to allow the Prime Minister to hold a portfolio that would allow him to travel all through the country.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was negatived.

put the question that the reduction be agreed to, and declared that the “ Noes ” had it.

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

Ayes—26.

Baxter, William Duncan Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frededick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—57.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Steuphanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville.

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron. Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilheimus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

said that they had again to raise their protest against the high scale of salaries paid to Ministers. They knew that it would be useless, but they would continue to bring the matter up year by year until a change was effected. The Ministers of this country were paid higher than Ministers in any part of the world, except certain Ministers in Great Britain and the Empire of India. In the United States Ministers drew £2,400 a year. He moved that the item of £4,000 be reduced by £500, with the idea of making the salary of the Prime Minister £3,500, and the salaries of the other Ministers £2,500.

said he thought this was a very reasonable proposition. He would appeal for support from the hon. members on the cross-benches, who went out just now, no doubt because they felt that they were in that House owing to the good offices of the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

said that he should support this motion for this reason, that when the same question was being discussed last year, he asked in a most categorical manner for an assurance from the Government that before next year’s Estimates were under consideration a Bill should be passed through Parliament to settle what should be the salaries of the Ministers. He believed that the present scale of Ministerial salaries, entirely apart from the present occupants of the post, should be settled by a Bill, and by a Select Committee on that Bill sitting upstairs. Another reason was the light and airy way in which the Ministry regarded the salaries of those in the Public Service. He referred more particularly to the Minister of Railways, who had told them that, although certain men had been receiving certain salaries, Ministers had made up their minds that those salaries were too high. Turning to the hon. member for Newlands, Mr. Creswell added that he was only too glad occasionally to help that party, not only with his vote but also with his voice.

The motion was declared to be negatived.

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

Ayes—30.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charies Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frededick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers. Noes—57.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville.

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

Sub-head A, as printed, was agreed to.

On sub-head (b), Transport and travelling, £1,200.

asked the reason for the increase of £300 over last year’s Estimates. Was it for the purpose of the right hon. the Prime Minister to travel more about the Free State?

said their experience had shown them that the smaller vote was too little. (Laughter.) The vote was for official travelling entirely.

inquired who paid the expenses of the right hon. gentleman to Graham’s Town?

He paid it from his own pocket.

said he was very glad to have had that statement from his hon. friend. They had had statements which did not tally with that expressed by his hon. friend. He understood that there was a special trip. They thought it was a reprehensible thing to visit a public institution, such as an asylum, in connection with a political campaign.

That is where he expects to get his support. (Laughter.)

I am glad to gather that that trip and all the expenses in connection with it, including the extra engine, were not borne by the State, but by the Prime Minister.

Is that correct?

I have said so already.

The assurance which the Minister gave was a very sketchy one. Does he accept the full details given by my hon. friend, because if he does, I am glad to hear it.

I don’t vouch for the details, nor the engine. (Laughter.)

We have passed a vote for the Prime Minister to have his time to himself. The chief argument addressed by the Prime Minister against the hon. member for Smithfield was that he travelled about addressing political meetings instead of attending to the Department of Justice.

I didn’t.

Now we are told that when the Prime Minister, who has no department, and is to draw £4,000 a year without a portfolio, will pay all the expenses of these political meetings he attends in the future. Good, we hope to see it.

said the more Ministers travelled about the country on public business the better it would be for the Ministers and the country. He was now assured that the whole of the expenditure in connection with the Prime Minister’s trip from Pretoria to Graham’s Town was charged against the right hon. gentleman’s private account. There were certain expenses, including a double-headed train from Alicedale. He (Sir Thomas) happened to be in the same train. (Laughter.) He saw the coach detached and two engines put on the train. But as he had received the assurance he withdrew everything he had said or thought of the Minister.

That is the best thing you have said the whole night.

The item was agreed to.

Sub-head C, £360, was agreed to. Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Wednesday next.