from T. Clifford, of Wynberg, a foreman in the South African Railways, who joined the Cape Civil Service on the 28th March, 1903, but did not contribute to the Pension Fund until January, 1910, praying that his services for the period during which he did not contribute may be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension, or for other relief.

from J. H. B. Moreland, of Natal, who in 1907 petitioned the Legislative Assembly of Natal for an inquiry into his claim against the Natal Government in respect of certain trust moneys due to his father’s estate, but obtained no relief, praying that the House may appoint a Select Committee to consider his case, or for other relief.

said that, in accordance with a notice which he had given, the Children’s Protection Bill had been set down for Committee stage on June 11. He thought it was desirable that the House should go into Committee on the Bill at an earlier date, and he therefore moved that the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the House to consider a motion to change the date for the consideration of the Order of the House to go into Committee on the Children Protection Bill from Wednesday, the 11th June, to Tuesday, the 3rd June.

stated that as there appeared to be some urgency for the suspension of the Rules in view of the lateness of the session, he would, in terms of Standing Order No. 279, allow the motion to be made as an unopposed motion.

It was agreed that the Standing Orders be suspended accordingly.

thereupon moved that the Bill be set down for Committee stage on June 3.

The motion was agreed to.

brought up the eighth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts as follows:

Your Committee, having considered the Exchequer Balances for the years 1910-11 and 1911-12 respectively, has to report as follows:

Exchequer Balances, 1910-11:

1. The Controller and Auditor-General reports in paragraph 1, pages v, and vi., of his General Report, that the available balance on 1910-11 is £805,329 8s. 8d.

This is arrived at after deductions of the sums of £32,773 18s. 1d., and £22,699 10s. 10d., referred to in paragraph (9) of the seventh report of the Public Accounts Committee, 1912, which have to be covered by a validating Act.

It also includes £29,914 5s. 10d., proceeds of sale of bewaarplaatsen, and £110,000, proceeds of Grange Free State Local Loans Fund, for the appropriation of which special sanction must be sought. After deducting these, the net available balance stands at £665,415 2s. 10d.

Your Committee would draw attention to the fact that this 1910-11 balance has remained in the Exchequer for two years, and submits, for the consideration of Government, that Parliamentary sanction be sought for its appropriation towards expenditure in 1913-14 in such manner as will secure that any balance remaining at the end of that year shall be paid over to the Public Debt Commissioners for the extinction of debt or for the cancellation of Union Stock at time of issue.

Exchequer Balances, 1911-12:

2. Your Committee has examined the Exchequer balance 1911-12, in connection with paragraph 7, page viii., of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report, and begs to report that the surplus on the year 1911-12, available for payment to the Public Debt Commissioners towards redemption of debt under section 5 of Act No. 18 of 1911 is £681,037 7s. 6d., and that £140,611 19s., bewaarplaatsen receipts during the year have still to be appropriated.

The report was set down for consideration to-morrow (Wednesday).

brought up the report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs on the question of deferred pay and the relative papers.

It was agreed that the report, together with the evidence, be printed, and set down for consideration on Monday next.

Proclamation No. 105 of 1913, providing for sale by public auction of land within Government townships in the Natal Province; Proclamation No. 106 of 1913, providing for sale by public auction of unalienated Crown lands within the Natal Province.

Return of extents of land in rural areas within the Union acquired (otherwise than by Crown grants) by natives—the registration of which acquisition was effected during 1909 to 1912.

Copies of records of the case of White v. Mauritian School, before the Magistrate’s Court, Durban, in December, 1911.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) What is the total number of recorded deaths on the Transvaal Mines during the ten years ended December 31, 1912, (a) of Europeans, and (b) of native and coloured and Chinese workers; (2) what is the total number during the same period of (a) European, (b) natives, coloured, and Chinese workers killed and injured in accidents; (3) what is the total number for the same period of native, coloured, and Chinese workers recruited for the mines who were sent back on arrival in Transvaal owing to sickness or medical unfitness and before commencing work; (4) what is the total number of deaths of native and coloured and Chinese mine workers recorded elsewhere than on the mines during same period among those repatriated through native or Chinese compounds; (5) what is the total number of native and coloured and Chinese labourers during the same period who were repatriated from the mines owing to ill-health or unfitness for work; (6) how many natives have received compensation under the Miners’ Phthisis Act as being (a) totally disabled, (b) partially disabled, and in how many eases has compensation been paid to dependents of natives who have died of miners’ phthisis, and what has been the total sum paid in respect of such compensation; and (7) how many natives or their dependents have received compensation in ease of accidents (a) in cases of death, (b) in cases of total disablement, (c) in cases of partial disablement?

replied: (1) (a) Europeans, no return; (b) native labourers, 52,6205; (c) Chinese, 3,071. (2) Period 1st July, 1902, to 31st December, 1912: (a) Europeans, 772 killed, 2,423 injured; (b) natives and coloured, 6,444 killed, 10,112 injured; (c) Chinese, 944 killed, 1,386 injured (3) Period 1907 to 1912 (inclusive): Transvaal natives, 3,554; others, no return; Chinese, none; from Durban, 134. (4) Period 1907 to 1912 (inclusive): Natives, 723 (no return Portuguese natives); Chinese, (a) at Durban 60, (b) on voyage to China 120. up to 30th June, 1907. (5) Period 1907 to 1912 (inclusive): Natives, 32,103; period ten years ended 31st December, 1912, Chinese, 5,320. (6) (a) 74; (b) 20: dependents, one case; total sum paid, £2,579 10s. (7) (a) 805, (b) 51, (c) 870.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) Whether in view of the fact that natives on the mines are probably ignorant of their condition when suffering from miners’ phthisis in the less advanced stages, steps are taken, either during employment or on repatriation, to ascertain if they are so suffering and, if so, what steps; and (2) whether the Government will take effective measures to ascertain the condition with regard to miners’ phthisis of all natives returning home from the mines?

replied: (1) Section 30, sub-section (4), of the Miners’ Phthisis Act imposes upon the mine medical officer the duty of reporting to the mine manager and on the mine manager of reporting to the director the fact of any native labourer suffering from miners’ phthisis. Instructions have, moreover, been given to all inspectors to report to the director all cases of natives suffering from or suspected of suffering from miners’ phthisis in whatever stage and at the same time to secure a medical examination of such natives by one of the medical advisers under the Act. Steps are then taken in accordance with the provisions of the Miners’ Phthisis Act with a view to compensation. No native can be repatriated on the ground of ill-health without the consent of the director, and the consent of the director is not given unless a certificate signed by the medical officer is produced showing the reasons for repatriation, the nature of illness, and that the native is in fit condition to travel. To ensure detection of every case of miners’ phthisis in the less advanced stages would necessitate a periodical, thorough, and systematic examination of every native employed on the mines for which it has not been found practicable to make provision. (2) In order to ascertain the condition with regard to all natives returning home from the mines a thorough medical examination of approximately 20,000 men a month at various centres in the Rand labour district would be required. This also it has not been found practicable to provide for, although this matter as well as the detection of the disease during employment is being considered with a view to means being devised for ensuring the due carrying out of the provisions of the Minors’ Phthisis Act.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) What is the amount he proposes to expend on the erection of telephone exchanges during the current financial year; (2) which are the towns to be served; and (3) what is the European population of each town falling under paragraph (2)?

replied: (1) During the current financial year it is proposed to expend £15,470 on the establishment of telephone exchanges at 19 towns throughout the Union. (2) and (3) The towns to be served, with their respective European populations are:

The establishment of telephone exchanges depends very largely upon the provision of telephone trunk facilities and the ability of the department to undertake the work in the several districts.

asked the Minister of Lands what are the reasons for the non-payment by the local authorities in the following places of the cost incurred by the Irrigation Department of the Union in advising them on local water schemes, viz.: Napier, £51 10s.; Wellington, £10 10s.; Stamford, £29 10s.; and Villiersdorp, £14?

asked the hon. member to let this question stand over until he received the particulars.

asked the Minister of Justice whether the case of an Indian named “Munien,” recently sentenced by the Magistrate at Verulam in the Province of Natal to imprisonment with hard labour for alleged contempt of Court in connection with “Munien’s” delay in the payment of his £3 licence, has had his attention, and whether he will inquire into the matter and place the papers and record upon the Table of this House?

replied that he would like very much to reply to his hon. friend, but he had not received any information to warrant him in making an inquiry. He would not attempt to interfere with the Magistrate in his function. With regard to laying the papers on the Table of the House, he did not think he could do that either. Under these circumstances he did not see how he could do anything in the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the reported plague of flies as causing the death of animals along the coast of Pondoland; (2) whether the Government has taken steps to investigate the same; and, if not, (3) whether the Government will do so?

replied: My attention has been drawn to the plague of flies along the coast of Pondoland and the matter is being investigated. The flies in question appear to be the ordinary biting flies common to the territories, notably Stomexye Calcitrans, which this season are unusually numerous, owing probably to particularly favourable climatic conditions.

had given notice to ask the Minister of Mines what contracts the Government has entered into with regard to the undermining rights of the bewaarplaatsen and whether Sir J. B. Robinson has any interest in such undermining rights, and, if so, to what extent?

The question dropped.

replied: (1) At the date of Union in the Cape alone of the four Provinces, gaolers were allowed to cultivate gaol grounds with prison labour at a low rate for their own profit. They sold their produce on the market, where in some cases they kept stalls, and the Government had to buy vegetables for the use of the prisoners. Since Union the Cape has been brought into line with the other Provinces in this respect, and the cultivation of gaol grounds is only allowed for gaol purposes. Gaolers are still permitted to cultivate little flower gardens for themselves. (2) Prison regulation 168 defines who may occupy Government houses held by prison officers, in which accommodation is generally very limited. The regulation reads: “168. Quarters assigned to an officer shall be used for his family, and no one else shall be permitted to sleep there without permission from the superintendent previously obtained, and every such permission shall be recorded. For the purpose of these regulations, “family” shall be taken to include the officer’s wife and children, but shall not include sons above 16 years of age and daughters above 18 years of age, unless such boys or girls are incapacitated through mental or physical infirmity from earning their living. Special permission from the Director shall be required for any case not falling within this definition.” This regulation has been interpreted liberally, and in no case has it been found necessary to exclude a son of over 16 or a daughter of over 18. (3) The rate quoted is the old Cape scale for second-class gaols. This scale from the 1st April, under reorganisation, is replaced by the higher scale of £155 to £175 per annum. The clerical work has increased since Union, but not to a very great extent, at gaols of this class. (4) It is not proposed to revert to pre-Union conditions in one Province out of the four, especially as the emoluments of Cape officers are on the whole being substantially improved under the reorganisation. The Cape Civil Service Act prohibits the return of pension contributions to officers who voluntarily resign.

called the attention of the Minister of Justice to a newspaper report of the strike at New Kleinfontein Mine, and the references therein to an alleged intention upon the part of the strikers to resort to “scientific striking” and sabotage. He asked the Minister to make a statement.

said his attention had been directed to this matter, and he regretted extremely to see that the practice of what was called sabotage was proposed to be introduced into this country. He had always held with the right of people to strike if they chose. He did not believe that this statement as to sabotage was more than a mere newspaper report. (Labour cheers.) In France those who went in for sabotage believed in wrecking trains. He did not believe the report to introduce such things into this country was true. It was such an extreme step that he did not think anyone would embark upon it. Still, he felt it his duty to take all necessary precautions. (Cheers.)

asked the Minister of Mines (1) whether he is aware that the alleged stoppage of work at the New Kleinfontein Gold Mining Company has been caused by the management altering the conditions of employment, and that of this change one month’s notice was not given as required by law; and (2) whether the Government intends to prosecute the manager for this contravention of the law which precipitated the strike?

said his attention had been drawn to the strike, and on the previous day he wired to Pretoria asking the Inspector of White Labour to proceed to the spot and make enquiries. By section 5 of the Transvaal Industrial Disputes Act, no change could be made in the hours of working without a month’s notice, nor could a strike legally take place within that month. It was alleged that both sides were at fault, that the month’s notice for changing the hours was not given, nor the month allowed to elapse before the strike was called. He was not in a position to say whether either of these allegations was correct, but he had a telegram stating that the Inspector of White Labour had proceeded to the spot on the previous day, and was sending a full report. In the meantime, the law officers had charge of the matter.

asked the Minister whether he had given explicit instructions to the Department to see that the law, or the Mining Regulations, were not departed from by the management during this period.

No.

Will he do so?

made no reply.

pointed out to the Minister of Finance that he could not find the report of the Trades Commissioner in London on the Table.

It is my intention to lay it on the Table. I will make enquiries.

was understood to ask why certain correspondence relating to the Free State Bursary Fund had not been laid on the Table.

The hon. member had better give notice of the question.

said that permission had been given him to put the matter before the House.

said he was not aware whether the correspondence was m the Treasury or in the Education Department. At any rate, he would make further enquiries and lay it on the Table.

moved: That the petition from G. H. Hulett and others, residents of Zululand and Vryheid, praying for immediate construction of a line of railway from Vryheid to Empangeni, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 13th May, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should, in accordance with section 88 of the South Africa Defence Act, prescribe by regulation: (a) That no private land shall be used for the purposes of military manœuvres without the consent of the owner; and (b) the conditions upon which compensation shall be paid to the owners or occupiers of such land when so used.

The hon. member pointed out that the number of young men who had joined the Defence Force was much greater than had been expected. It was provided in clause 88 of the Act that the Governor-General could allocate certain districts and farms for the holding of manœuvres and the setting up of camps. In the Free State many of the farmers had fenced off their farms into sections and knew exactly how many cattle they could maintain there, and in some cases they were unable to dispense with any portion of their grass. But if such a farm was selected for the purpose of holding manœuvres, the farmer might just as well trek, as there would not be sufficient food for his own cattle, and the speaker might further point out that the main roads and the ground adjacent for the trekking of cattle had been reduced from 100 to 79, 60, and 50 feet. He thought, therefore, that sufficient compensation should be paid for the use of such ground, and that it ought not to be used without the consent, of the owner. If that were not done, he feared there would be a good deal of dissatisfaction.

seconded the motion.

supported the motion, and said he had pointed out the same difficulty last year when the Bill was under consideration. A good deal of damage had been done in the past owing to the holding of military inspections, and much damage had been done to landowners. Owing to the grazing of horses at the wapenschows, a great deal of damage was done, whilst in the course of the manœuvres injury was also caused to the fences, which were sometimes smashed to pieces, and the farmer had to make good such losses. The Government ought to see to it that no further damage was caused in that way to the farmers, and if that was not done, it might result in irregularities between the owners and the officers. He was heartily in favour of the motion.

in replying to the debate, said that under clause 88 of the South Africa Defence Act, to which reference was made in the motion, it would be necessary to make regulations. Those regulations had now been issued, and had been published in the “Gazette.” Provisions were contained in them determining the compensation which was to be paid and the manner in which the amount was to be fixed. Those regulations would, he was convinced, give general satisfaction.

So far as point (a) in the motion was concerned, it was not practicable, as it would be in conflict with the provisions of the law. It was laid down in the law that the Governor-General could from time to time point out places where the Defence Force could hold manœuvres, and for which compensation was to be paid according to the regulations. Regulations, therefore, could only be made on the subject of compensation which was payable, and not on the question of obtaining the consent of the owner. Such consent, in terms of the law, was not demanded., Still, in giving effect to the provisions of the clause, attention would be paid to the interests of the country, and he did not believe it was the intention to carry out manœuvres on a large scale in thickly populated areas, as it would cause too much inconvenience. The Government and the Council of Defence would certainly see that such manœuvres were carried out in thinly populated parts of the country.

asked whether special attention would be paid to the question of not using up all the water on small farms.

The motion was then put.

declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division; but he subsequently withdrew.

The motion was therefore negatived.

moved that all papers referred to by the Postmaster-General in his minute to the Postmaster of Durban, dated December 5, 1912, in connection with certain grievances of the Natal postal and telegraph officials, together with the complete minute from the legal advisers to the Government, be laid upon the Table of this House. The mover said the conditions under which the Post Office officials in the different Provinces worked varied very much indeed prior to Union. In Natal they were included among the members of the Civil Service; the terms of appointment were exactly those of any member of any other department, and they were liable to transfer, and were exactly on the same footing as to promotion as other civil servants were. When Union was formed a safeguarding clause—section 135—was inserted in the Act of Union which protected the existing and accruing, rights of all the civil, servants of the various Provinces. It was contended by the Natal postal and telegraph officials that as far as they were concerned this section was being broken by the Government. Shortly after Union the Postmaster-General of the Union issued a circular in which he altered the rates of pay of these people. Later on another circular was sent out increasing their hours to as much as 48 per week. Furthermore their status was altered, and a circular was issued stating that they were no longer part and parcel of the Civil Service of the Union, but formed a service of their own. It was now contended by the postal and telegraph officials of Natal that this was a breach of the Act of Union. If the Government drove a wheelbarrow through the Act of Union now, it would not be long before they put a steam-roller through it. Members should insist that the Act be not broken in any shape or form. Time after time the Natal post and telegraph officials had put their grievances before the Postmaster-General, who said that he had submitted their complaints to his law advisers, who advised him that they did not form a breach of the Act of Union. He would like to have the papers laid on the Table, so that the House could decide whether there had been a breach of the Act of Union.

seconded.

hoped that the motion would either be withdrawn or defeated. The position was this, that on the reorganisation of the Public Service of the Union the postal and telegraph officers were divided into two classes—first, the clerical or administrative branch and, secondly, the executive branch. This was done following the Public Service Act passed last year, and it was certainly the intention of Parliament that Government should make these distinctions. The gentlemen who were moving in this matter were postal officials in Natal, who claimed that their status had been reduced and their rights infringed by the Government. They said that when they joined the Natal Postal Service they were appointed under the Civil Service Act, and that as they were civil servants, they could not he put into the Executive Branch of the Postal Service The matter was very carefully gone into by the various departments, and the result was that the Government authorised the Postmaster-General to issue a circular dividing the postal officials into two classes. These gentlemen had petitioned the Government on several occasions, and their case had received the fullest consideration,— and the Postmaster-General had submitted a case on his own initiative to the Jaw advisers to the Government, and asked them to state whether the allegations made by the postal officials if correct amounted to an infringement of the rights that were secured to them under the Act of Union.

This legal opinion was not asked for at the request of the postal officials, but by the Government for its information. He thought it was asking too much to expect that the Government would lay on the Table of the House a legal opinion by its own legal advisers, more especially as the mover had told them that the postal officials had also taken legal advice, and he supposed wanted to know the opinion given to the Government by its legal advisers.

No.

said that the purport of the opinion, but not the actual opinion itself was given to the postal officials concerned. They knew that the legal advisers of the Government had stated that nothing that had been done was done in the direction of infringing their rights. (Hear, hear.) He had already discussed the matter with the hon. member and had shown him the documents as far as he could, and had said that if the officials concerned felt inclined to make a test case and take the Government into Court, he would endeavour to make it as easy for them as possible, and would undertake that none of those gentlemen who either sued the Government or were witnesses in any case brought against the Government would be in any way prejudiced either in regard to pay, promotion, or anything else. He had approached this matter sympathetically and with every desire to see justice done, but he had to deal with facts as he found them. He might say that the Civil Service Commission itself stated that in their opinion the meaning of the words “existing and accruing rights,” which were reserved to Civil Servants under the Act of Union, was somewhat obscure. The Government had taken what they considered the proper course. They had looked at the matter from all points of view. They had brought about a scheme of reorganisation which, although it might have caused dissatisfaction in some cases, had been very well received throughout the service as a whole, and they had received the advice that the action they had taken was according to law. He hoped that, after this statement, the hon. member would withdraw his motion, because he was convinced that the House would not ask the Government to place on the Table departmental papers, confidential papers which had passed from one department to another, nor would they ask the Government to place on the Table a legal opinion which might possibly be used in connection with legal proceedings hereafter.

said he hoped that the hon. member would not withdraw his motion. He was disappointed with the answer given by the Minister. The interpretation of this particular clause in the Act of Union was one of very great importance to a large number of men, and the only reason, as he gathered, was that the Minister began his statement by a number of arguments showing that the Government had acted perfectly rightly. If they had acted perfectly rightly, what could possibly be the effect of laying the papers on the Table? Then the Minister went on to say that the Postmaster-General had obtained the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown, and, as far as one could gather from his remarks, there must be something in that legal opinion which gave the Minister a good deal of cause to doubt whether what the Government had done was quite as much a subject for congratulation as his earlier remarks induced them to believe. The whole sum and substance of his objection to laying the papers on the Table apparently was this, that the knowledge of what was contained in these papers might be of such a character as to be useful to those who brought a suit against the Government in defence of their rights, as established by the Act of Union. He did submit to the Government that they were there in order to protect the rightful and just interests of the general taxpayer of the country. They were not there, in trying to protect those interests, to do any injustice to any of the citizens of this country. If they were keeping hack information which might be useful to the persons concerned, he thought, they were adopting an attitude which should not receive the sympathy of this House. He was sure the members of that House did not desire to see these postal officials deprived one jot or tittle of the rights which a Court of Law might adjudge to them. It was the duty of the Government to give these officials every possible information which would assist them in what the Minister himself, apparently, would regard as a friendly suit.

said that it might save a good deal of debate if he pointed out that the Minister had stated that this opinion was in the position of a confidential document, and he ruled on February 8, 1912 (page 109, Votes and Proceedings, 1912), that such a document could not be produced after a statement made by the Minister. On that occasion he referred to the same opinion which he gave in the preceding year in connection with the Post Office.

said that he would like to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point that in the event of a Minister or any member quoting from a document in the House, who was to decide whether the document would injuriously affect public interests?

said that he had to take the word of the Minister. A further question arose in this case. From the statement of the Minister, it seemed that it was contemplated, or might be contemplated, that the contingency might arise of legal action being taken in this matter, and, therefore, if such a contingency arose the matter was sub judice and should not be discussed in that House. He would refer the hon. member to the ruling he gave on Monday, February 19, 1912 (Votes and Proceedings, page 176), where he stated that the Chair had no authority to order that papers quoted by private members should be laid on the Table of the House. He also stated that documents quoted in the course of debate by Ministers of the Crown, private letters, should be laid on the Table of the House unless they were of a confidential nature.

asked whether it would not be in order to move that all the other papers in this case be laid on the Table, apart from the minute which the Minister referred to as confidential?

said he took it that the minute of the Postmaster-General here to the Postmaster at Durban, together with the legal opinion obtained by the Postmaster-General from the law officers of the Crown, were papers of such a nature as to be of a confidential character, passing from one department to another.

said that he might mention the papers. There was a petition by the postal officials concerned, and two or three minutes by them. There were certain departmental minutes on the subject, a statement of the case by the Postmaster-General, and a legal opinion. The point was that these documents, so far as they related to the statement of the case by the Postmaster-General and the legal opinion, were confidential papers, for the information of the Government.

said that the question had cropped up often enough in Parliament, and it was a well-recognised fact that all communications and correspondence that passed between the Minister and the department were confidential matters, and were not to be laid on the Table of the House unless the Minister agreed to do so. It was a question of Ministerial responsibility. It was usually the course that when a Minister said that the correspondence was of a confidential nature the question then dropped in the House. It could never be in the public interests that correspondence of a confidential nature should be published.

asked if they were to understand that the mere contemplation or the mere possibility of legal proceedings being instituted, ipso facto made a matter sub judice?

said he did not think the hon. member had quite followed what he stated. He based his advice to the House on quite a different position—the confidential nature of the documents. He also stated, by the way, that it seemed to him, from what was stated, that this matter would be sub judice, but he did not rule on that. He could not gather the fact from the motion itself, but if it is stated that confidential documents had passed between one department and another department, his hon. friend would see that it was not competent that they should be made public.

said the motion was of the utmost importance in the Transvaal. The hon. member was proceeding to address the House further, when Mr. SPEAKER informed the hon. member that he was out of order.

The motion dropped.

moved: That in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced at an early date, with a view to the establishment of Wages Boards within the Union. The mover stated that, with the permission of the House, he desired to alter his motion to read as follows: “That the Government be requested to take into consideration, at an early date, the formation of Wages Boards.” At this stage of the session it would be unwise to say a great deal upon this matter. All those who were interested in this question would agree that wherever Wages Boards had been tried they had been a very satisfactory success. All they needed to do was to slightly alter the law, and what he suggested would be done.

seconded the motion.

said he hoped that the motion would be accepted. He not only hoped this, but he hoped also that the Minister, in forming these Wages Boards, would form them in such a fashion and give them such powers as to make them really live forces. A law was passed in the Transvaal House purporting to deal with industrial disputes, but this had been rendered perfectly nugatory. The law in, the Transvaal was passed for the purpose of making it difficult for strikes to come about and to have effect, but it was not making it difficult for employers to penalise the men by using the Act themselves. He referred to the dispute between the miners and the associated employers. Then they had a spectacle of a man endeavouring to cite a fair case and the employers preventing them. Proceeding, the hon. member said he would like to deal with the fictitious charge of sabotage with reference to the strike on the New Klein fontein Mine.

Oh, no, no. This is not a question of sabotage. It is a question of Wages Board.

Well, if you will not allow me to talk about this charge, I will proceed with the rest of my argument. Proceeding, the hon. member said he wanted to cite a case that had arisen quite recently. Here they had a case of a dispute between a man and the employers which could so easily be adjusted, because when they made Wages Boards they did not mean the Board that would fix the rate per hour, but Boards that would deal with their condition and their hours of work. Referring to the Apex Mine, the hon. member pointed out that men who worked on the surface were required to go down the mine and work under conditions they did not engage themselves for. Directly this Act was instituted of having an eight hours day, the manager insisted upon all these men working 48 hours a week, although formerly they had only worked 45. By reason of that, these men were undergoing other risks, they protested against their 45 hours per week being increased at all. The manager insisted that they should work this length of time, and the men then intended to strike. His hon. friend the member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews), together with himself, interviewed the manager of the mine, and, after half an hour’s conversation, the whole question was settled. The manager then admitted that their contention was correct. He admitted that these men should have some compensation for extra inconvenience and risk, and, as the result of that, the obnoxious instruction of the manager was withdrawn, with the result that peace was secured and the men returned to their old condition of 45 hours per week. Where they had a manager that was at all reasonable, these disputes need not occur. This manager was relieved by the manager of the New Kleinfontein Mine, they knew exactly what was going to be the result of any action of this description. If managers introduced things that the men objected to, they were asking for trouble. He hoped the Minister would accept the motion and see about the formation of these Boards.

The motion, as altered, was agreed to.

moved: For a return showing: (1) All contracts entered into between the Government on the one side and any party or parties on the other side in connection with the undermining of the bewaarplaatsen, with particulars of such contracts; (2) the registered owners upon which bewaarplaatsen are situated; (3) the estimated value of the undermining rights referred to in the Bewaarplaats Moneys Application Bill, distinguishing between the right to mine under bewaarplaatsen in existence before the passing of the Transvaal Act No. 15 of 1908, and Acts subsequently enacted. The mover said he would like to suggest, if the motion was accepted, that the Minister would give him an answer at the same time to the question that he had given notice of, namely, what interest Sir J. B. Robinson had in these bewaarplaatsen.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Railways Construction Bill. He said he thought that the Union Parliament was not in the happy position of having the money in its pockets for the construction of these lines of railway. Financially, to-day, he thought that the Government had scarcely a feather to fly with— (laughter)—but they had brought forward a programme of railways which were very much needed in South Africa. He thought it would be found that the money market at the present time was not in a very suitable state for borrowing any large sum. Undoubtedly there was no country in the world that was so much in need of railway communication as the Union of South Africa; they had no navigable waterways, and most of their roads were merely roads in name. If only the most valuable districts, from the agricultural point of view, had been selected for the construction of these lines of railway, then he did not think that any fault could be found with the railway proposals of the Government. But the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, questioned whether the country would be able to bear the cost of these railways at the present time. He would rather take up the opposite standpoint, and say that South Africa could not afford not to build these railways. The question of where these railways were to be constructed had been left to the tender mercies of the Railway Board, and he did not think that the reports of the Board were such as to justify the expectations of those sanguine gentlemen at the National Convention who decided on the formation of such a Board. So far as Natal was concerned, he would rather see the question of the location of new railways left in the hands of the Provincial Council, which possessed a splendid local knowledge. He was sorry to see in the schedule they had another of those very objectionable two-foot gauge railways. The place appointed —Paddock to Harding—was the last place where such a railway should be constructed. It was a railway that was destined to become an important part of the trunk line between Natal and the Cape, and the expenditure on a two-foot gauge in this particular district was a great mistake. That railway, when it was built, would traverse some of the most valuable agricultural country in South Africa.

He would rather that the Minister had devoted some £3,000 or £4,000 of his betterment fund to widening out the gauge of the Port Shepstone railway to 3 ft. 6 in., and drop the two-foot gauge in South Africa. The first complaint of the Minister in his speech with regard to branch railways was that they were costing too much to construct, and the other complaint was that they were costing too much to operate. That House should set itself to provide cures for these complaints. He did not like the reference of the Minister to ramshackle railways. They could not afford to build—

I said that they were called ramshackle railways.

I hope they won’t be ramshackle railways. Continuing, he said that his main point was, that when they built a railway, it should be built well. The embroideries, as they were called by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, might be cheap, but the permanent way should be sound and serviceable. He wanted to know from the Minister what he meant by cheap light lines, and said that a cost of nearly £4,000 per mile did not point to the fact that these railways were on the light side. There was, of course, the question of rolling-stock, but even £3,500 per mile did not indicate that these railways were very light railways. He pointed out that the idea that a railway should be built in accordance with the configuration of the country, and said the trouble was that they built a railway of a flat-country type in hilly country. He thought they did not take sufficient advantage of appliances provided by science for surmounting difficulties in rough country, and alluded to an engine built by a well-known Manchester firm for the Tasmanian Government expressly for sharp curves. That firm had written to him saying that they could build locomotives, at a cost of £4,000 each, that would take curves of 150 feet radius, just as easily as the engines they used at present took a curve with a 300 feet radius. The cost per mile could easily be reduced under these circumstances by £1,000 a mile, and in some cases even £2,000 a mile. The hon. member made the following quotation from a work on light railways by Mr. A. M. Wellington, a well-known authority on these matters: “Whatever conclusion may be just as to the proper standard of curvature for lines of fair traffic, it is certain that for a road to which the last degree of economy in first cost is essential, and which does not expect more than a light traffic, the intelligent use of sharp curvature offers one of the simplest, most efficient, and most expedient methods of economising.” Then speaking of 175 feet radius curves on standard gauge railways over which a heavy traffic passes, the same authority said: “While these extremes are to be deprecated (nor are they often required) they do make it an absurdity to say that a cheap light traffic line may not use almost any curvature which the nature of its route calls for in order to reduce the first cost, whatever its gauge—in a country offering any difficulty. The reduction which can be effected in this way is very large indeed, and it will generally be found that by use of sharp curvature a line closely approximating to a surface line can be obtained…. This disadvantage is far less than that of light rails in almost every instance.”

Radius curves of 150 feet were more economical than 300 feet radius curves. If the Minister would call for a report as to the saving that would be effected by the use of the former on some of these branch lines, he (Mr. Fawcus) thought he would be both surprised and pleased. The George-Oudtshoorn line had been a most expensive one to construct because a sufficient use had not been made of sharp curves. The Minister had been induced to build some light lines with 45 lb. rails, but he (Mr. Fawcus) considered this very questionable economy indeed. The worst way to economise was to reduce the weight of the rail. With a good heavy rail they could do with fewer sleepers and less ballast, and the difference between using a 45 lb, and a 60 lb. rail amounted to only £168 per mile. We spent as much as that on unnecessary fences. It would be much better not to fence a branch line, but to have a good solid bed for the trains to run on. The Minister had said that he did not advocate the building of any more two-foot railways. He (Mr. Fawcus) considered that it was never necessary to build two-foot, lines in South Africa. Our branch lines cost too much to build, and too much to operate. With a break of gauge there was the extra cost of transshipment, and the employment of extra engines, drivers, firemen, and guards. He advocated that the Minister should take in hand as soon as possible the widening of the two-foot lines to 3 ft. 6 in. He was sorry to see the sum of £11,000 had been put down for the purchase of five new narrow-gauge engines, and he recommended that the existing light rolling stock should be used up on such lines as the Port Elizabeth—Avontuur. With one exception he did not wish to oppose a single railway mentioned in the Bill; the only one he was going to oppose—that from Almans Nek to Vryheid—the Minister had announced he was not going to build. He could more usefully employ the money by constructing a railway from Llewellyn to Kokstad. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and other Cape members had criticised the money spent on railway construction in Natal. It seemed to him that one had only to mention Natal in connection with any railway matters and up got half the Cape members. Although the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said that Natal was getting more than its fair share of railways, £975,530 were to be spent on constructing railways in the Cape; £670,000 in the Transvaal; £610,000 in the Free State; and only £470,000 in pampered Natal. The Cape Railways would involve a loss of £38,000 a year.

The interest on a million.

said the annual loss on the new lines proposed to be built in the Transvaal would be £27,000; in the Free State, £21,000; and in pampered Natal £18,000.

Good heavens! (Laughter.) What is the amount per head of the population?

said the Select Committee on Railway Land Expropriation had reported in favour of reducing the width of land expropriated for railway construction to fifty feet. We were still expropriating different widths in different Provinces for this purpose, and he was puzzled to know why 100 feet should be expropriated in Natal, against 70 feet in the Cape. Then the committee recommended that all claims under £300 should be considered by a Board. If the Minister would take half the advice contained in the report of that Select Committee he would find it most valuable. He (Mr. Fawcus) had just come over the Cape Flats Railway, and he found that there it had been possible perfectly well to construct a single line on a 30 feet width of ground, and even at stations the land expropriated was only 100 feet in width. The Minister had said that he had found it impossible, with the amount of money at his disposal, to satisfy all demands, but he said that at least he hoped that he had satisfied all the reasonable members. He (Mr. Fawcus) was at a loss to understand why the Minister should find all the reasonable men sitting on his own side of the House because, if they took these railway construction proposals, they found that the gentlemen sitting on his side were the only persons who were to get any railways built in their constituencies. As to the Idutywa-Umtata line, he thought the Minister had adopted a wise course in deciding upon the standard type of railway. He wished the Minister would take the same view of the railway to Alfred County, and make it on the 3 ft. 6 in gauge, and build it in a fairly substantial manner. He thought the Minister had adopted a wrong course in taking this railway right through the town of Harding, because the ridge line was a far better one.

In regard to the Kroonstad-Vierfontein line, the Board had reported that this line should start in the neighbourhood of Jordaan Siding. He thought the gradient was given as 1 in 100. To his mind, it would have been much better if they had taken the America Siding-Vierfontein route, and gone on the north side of Rhenoster Kop. They would have had an easy gradient, the line would have been two miles shorter, and they would have saved between £300 and £400 per mile in construction. He was glad to see that the Minister had dropped the idea of supplying rolling stock for all his branch lines. There was no doubt a good deal of rolling stock would be released by this line, which was destined to become one of the main trunk lines, if not the trunk line. In regard to the railway in the north-west of the Cape, he could have wished that the Railway Board had taken such courage as they happened to have in both hands, and taken the line further south towards Twee Rivers, which would have opened up a very valuable piece of country, and have obviated the expense of working the branch line of railway. It seemed to him that the bad policy had been adopted of sacrificing the development of the country to distance. From Williston he would strongly suggest that the line should be taken to the upper reaches of the Zak River, to a farm called Tabaksfontein, until they came to Loxton, and then the junction should be made at some point midway between Victoria West and Carnarvon, say, Kwe-Kwe. In regard to the Natal lines, the Minister had said that there was no comment needed in connection with these. His (Mr. Fawcus’) point of view was that there was necessity for very serious comment indeed in connection with these Natal lines. The first line he would refer to was the Eshowe Railway. Proceeding, the hon. member said there was no doubt that good roads were very much better than bad roads, but there was no comparison between them and a railway or a motor railway. He would like to refer to another reasonable person—the member for Umvoti County. He had two railways in his constituency. With reference to the auxiliary railways he would like to say a few words as to the industries these railways would tap. The fact of the matter was they were going to open up wattle growing and mealie growing country, and huge quantities of material could be carried away by the railways. Although he did not want to be considered one of the reasonable men referred to by the Minister, he would say this, that he had the honour of presenting a petition for one of the railways they were building, namely, that from Donnybrook to Underberg. When the Minister was spending three million pounds for the purpose of bringing down coal to Durban, he was doing as much as any reasonable member in the House could expect him to do. In connection with this he would like to refer to one or two of the Railway Board’s reports—last year’s reports. If the reports of the Railway Board had been carried out then they would never have heard of these new railways. Perhaps it would not be a bad plan to give the Railway Board another 12 months to think about these matters, and perhaps they would improve them more than they did last year. The point in connection with the Railway Board’s report seemed to be this, that either the last year’s proposals were not considered to be the result of the Board’s report or else this year’s proposals were wrong. He considered it to be the duty of the House to see that the duties of the Railway Board were properly defined.

said he had never yet voted against the construction of new railways, so long as they were in the interest of the advancement of the country, not even when such lines were not expected immediately to pay their way. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was always ready to point out that this or that branch line was not paying, but it was not necessary that they should do so at once, so long as they helped towards the development of the country. The hon. member for Umlazi had reproached the Government party with being well satisfied with the proposed scheme of new construction, but that was by no means the case. The speaker was personally very dissatisfied with it, and in fact had not heard a single member express his satisfaction with it. The right hon. member for Victoria West had shown himself to be one of the most dissatisfied, although he had got a railway for his own district. The speaker had pleaded for years past for an extension of the Somerset East railway, but no notice had been taken of his representations. He was tired of asking for that extension, and would, therefore, say no more about it for the present. Another objection against the Bill was that the rights of the owners were too much interfered with. Formerly the owners retained their right to the transport of the ground required for the railway. The hon. member for Umlazi had stated that the money which was intended to be spent on the fencing of the lines should be Spent on other objects. The hon. member thought that fencing was not necessary. He would certainly not speak like that if he were a farmer who kept thoroughbred cattle. In the speaker’s opinion the Bill would not be likely to give much satisfaction, and he advised the Government to drop it down the agenda.

said it appeared to him that the hon. members from the Transvaal were disappointed because the lines to be built were not sufficient. The speaker was also disappointed because more lines in the west of the Transvaal had not been recommended. The Board knew the requirements of the Moot, near Pretoria, and it was a mistake that they had not recommended the construction of a line there. The Moot was not only a fruitful district, but it also contained mines. If the Board did its work properly they would have advised a line through the Moot, seeing that such a line would show handsome profits. However, he intended to vote for the lines proposed. Another line would be required from Magaliesberg to Pretoria, which also would show substantial profits. The hon. members for Ermelo and Standerton should be well satisfied with the proposed line, and generally, every line which developed the country was a good proposition. He had received a request to protest against the proposed lines in the Cape. The hon. member for Beaufort West had stated that in the Transvaal every village had its railway, whilst in the Cape there were none. The facts were entirely the other way about. The Cape lost £27 per mile, whilst in the other Provinces large profits were shown. According to the Constitution they ought only to build lines which showed a profit. It sometimes happened in the Transvall that farmers had to go eighty miles in order to get their produce to the market. The Transvaal market was served and, indeed, overwhelmed with produce from the Cape, and that was not in accordance with the promises made at the time of Union. Whilst stuff from the Cape paid 30s. per ton in order to get to the Transvaal market, Transvaal farmers who wanted to reach the Cape market had to pay much more, with the result that the Cape market was closed to them. However, in despite of his instruction, he intended to vote for the lines in the Cape Province.

said that he must associate himself with the, hon. member for Oudtshoorn in his protest at the omission of any reference in that Bill to the South-Western districts of the Cape. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

It is coming home now. (Laughter.)

Especially that the line from George to Knysna is not included. (Cheers and laughter.) Continuing, he said that it was only the other day that the Minister of Justice, who then held the Portfolio of Minister of Railways and Harbours, received a monster deputation from those districts. The Minister received them with the courtesy he always showed to deputations, and his reply was most sympathetic. (Laughter.) He was sure that every member of the deputation went away feeling certain that in the Government’s proposals for this year the line from George to Knysna would be included. He would say that the disappointment at the action of the present Minister of Railways and Harbours would be felt very keenly indeed. A good opportunity, from a purely business point of view, had been lost, because the 750 convicts employed on the George to Oudtshoorn line, nearing completion, could have been used on the line from George to Knysna, and he thought that an excellent opportunity had been lost. It was the only port of its size in the Union that was not connected by railway with the hinterland. It was the only port of its size in the Union that had not got a railway.

There is a railway.

That is a private line, and it is only 10 miles long.

To Mossel Bay?

No! I am talking about the port of Knysna. (Laughter.) Although hon. members might laugh, his hon. friend the member for Oudtshoorn had stated that these districts were being ruined by the absence of railway communication. The poor white problem had reached an acute stage there, and all the authorities agreed that a solution of the problem would be found by furnishing these districts with means of railway communication. He pointed out that the Select Committee on European labour dealt most sympathetically with this difficult problem, and he recommended part of that report for the consideration of the Government, and especially the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Paragraph 13 of the report read: “The great want is communication. It is of no manner of use to tell a poor man to cultivate his little plot in a place where he cannot get his goods to any market, nor can he go in for small industries for the same reason. The primary need of the district, now become a sort of by-word for thriftlessness, is railway communication, which would in itself largely solve the problem of the poor wood-cutter.” He did hope that this question of railway communication in these districts would receive the earnest attention of the Government, and that the railway measure of next session would include provision for the construction of the railway from George to Knysna.

said one fact they should bear in mind was that it was impossible to build every line at the same time. These lines which could not be built this year would be built next year or the year after. As far as his part of the country was concerned he urged that a small branch from the present line to Dordrecht, so often asked for, should be made. He intended to support the Bill, not because he was particularly satisfied with it, but because he saw that the country needed railway development.

asked what the Minister intended to do with regard to railway lines in the north-west of the Free State. For years past the requirements of Boshof and Hoopstad had been urged, and it was not necessary for him now to repeat them. The lines from Kroonstad to Vierfontein would meet a good many demands, but neither Boshof nor Hoopstad would be served by them. What was the intention of the Railway Board with regard to the line to Bothaville? Would that line be extended to Boshof and Hoopstad and the mines there? It was to be regretted that the Minister had not personally visited those places, but perhaps he would be able to do so during the ensuing recess. The districts were not only good in the matter of agricultural prospects, but the diamond mines there ought to be helped. The Roberts Victor, Blauwbosch, and Elandsput could not compete with the other mines unless they were served with a railway. When a district produced grain and also had mines in it, it was their duty to help forward such a district. He appealed, therefore, to the Minister and the Prime Minister, who had promised to give his support to the construction of railways in the northwestern portions of the Free State. If those districts did not get a railway, it would be impossible for them to continue to exist. The farmers there were badly handicapped owing to different circumstances, and a railway would help them substantially.

said he desired to enter a protest against the very meagre information which had been given the House on such an important matter. It would be well in the future to see that the Railway Board gave the House full and complete information. He would like to know, too, what method should be employed to bring the railway requirements of different districts before the notice of the Railway Board. He would suggest that the Minister should intimate to the Board that it should do a little wandering about the country on its own to see where railways were required. He joined issue with the Minister of Railways in his statement that to his knowledge lines of railway could be built in this country which would pay from the outset but that there was no money with which to build them. While the Minister realised that he set to work to construct railways which he knew would not pay from the outset.

Marvellous.

It may appear marvellous to the hon. member but not to the ordinary man. Continuing, Mr. Madeley complained that the Minister had failed to realise the importance of the Rand from a railway construction point of view, more especially in view of the fact that railways on the Rand had always paid handsomely. He desired to support the hon. members for Germiston, Yeoville, and Boksburg in their desire to see a railway constructed from Springs to Heidelberg. The hon. member for Germiston had suddenly taken a keen interest in that part of the Rand, but he remembered that when he (Mr. Madeley) was moving heaven and earth to get a railway built from Welgedacht to Benoni the hon. member for Germiston did not lift a finger to help him. A. group of mines in which the hon. member for Germiston was interested had very large interests at Nigel, and, although he was supporting the hon. member he did so from very different motives. The hon. member’s motive he believed was connected with mining interests, but his (Mr. Madeley’s) motive was the interest of the whole of the people. The people of Springs and Nigel wanted a railway, and therefore he wanted it too. He was not financially interested in any ventures there, but he realised that the country in that region was capable of intense development, not only from an agricultural but also from an industrial point of view.

Mr. Madeley went on to say that the Minister of Railways had taken up a very extraordinary position with regard to expropriation when he deliberately said that, in regard to schemes for building new railways, the Administration considered the price put upon the land to be expropriated, and where any particular land-owner through whose ground the route would pass put up his price to an exorbitant extent, then the railway authorities would consider not building that railway at all. That was entirely wrong, for the land should be expropriated at a valuation. The hon. member for Yeoville had deliberately said a thing which they very advanced Socialists on the cross-benches would never dream of saying—that was, expropriate land without compensation. He (Mr. Madeley) could not coincide with that idea, for wherever expropriation took place, compensation should be paid at a fair valuation. He (Mr. Madeley) was quite unable to say whether the lines mentioned in the Bill were good or bad, and it was not fair for any Minister of Railways to expect members to vote for a schedule of lines about which they knew nothing. In the future, he hoped the Minister would consider the propriety of asking the Railway Board to make full inquiries into the matter, and not for one member of the Board to run round the district in a motor-car.

said that there was a line in his constituency which he very much regretted was not included in the Minister’s programme for the present year. He hoped it might be possible even yet to include that line; but, if that were not done, he trusted that the line would find a high place in the Minister’s programme for next year. The line was one that would open up an important agricultural district, every acre of which was occupied, and it would go to a big native location, and pass through an important mealie district. The hon. member for Umlazi had twitted him with having advocated a road motor service. While he did not advocate a motor service for heavy traffic, he thought that, so far as passenger traffic, parcels, and light traffic generally were concerned, there was no doubt whatever that the road motor service, under proper conditions, had been a success where it had been instituted. In regard to the question of the expropriation of land, if it were necessary in the interests of the public that land should be expropriated for the public service, he apprehended that the Government would follow an equitable course. He thought, where land was developing very rapidly, and the conditions of the area in which it was situated were such that they might look for a great enhancement of the value of the land in a very limited time, that element ought to be taken into consideration by any just Government. Dealing with the powers of the Railway Board, the hon. member remarked that, so far as his experience had gone, he believed that the Railway Board had no power of initiation, and that that depended entirely upon the Minister, after consultation with his colleagues. He believed that the idea of making a Railway Board which should be absolutely independent of the Government—i.e., of the people—was not a sound or practical proposition.

said that at the present stage he wanted to deal with one question in particular, namely, that of road transport service as an alternative to the building of these rather expensive lines. An entirely new feature had arisen during the last few years in connection with the building of railways, because to-day, with the possibilities of road transport service, they had to consider, when they were building a line, not so much the immediate neighbourhood, but the whole district which might be tapped by means of road motors. The last report of the General Manager of Railways dealt somewhat fully with this question.

said that this was a Bill for the construction of railways, not motor services.

continuing, explained that he wanted to show that certain lines proposed in this Bill, especially as far as Natal was concerned, would be better served by motor transport. One line in particular that he was referring to was the one proposed to be built from Donnybrook to Underberg (34 miles). Now, according to the report, it was anticipated that the goods traffic would be only at the rate of £38 per mile per annum, or about £3 per mile per month. On the other hand, it was said that livestock would be carried at the rate of £244 per mile per annum, but then livestock could be driven to existing stations. Passengers would be even better served by a motor service. The district of Underberg was one in which there was no very great possibility of agriculture. It was certainly going ahead as far as livestock was concerned, but it lay on the slopes of the berg, and there was a big area which was similar to this which would not be touched by this line at all. With a road motor service, at the same cost as the proposed line, they could serve not only the 34 miles from Donnybrook to Underberg, but the districts of Impendhle and Bulwer as well. Proceeding, the hon. member said the idea of the General Manager was that they should first test the possibilities of a district with motors before building railway lines. Surely the construction of a line was not justified if it was not to bring in more than £33 per mile per annum, which was the amount estimated for the carriage of goods on the Gairtney extension in the Cape. With regard to the two railways from Schroeders, and from Dalton, via Fawn Leas, those districts through which they proposed to run were very highly developed. He quite agreed that the maximum of development had been reached, but it had gone up with the existing railways. They did not need another railway to reach that maximum. Really this line was constructed only to serve a few farmers, who would be but a short distance away from the existing line. There were other districts in Natal that could be served by railways to much better advantage. In committee he would certainly oppose the line from Schroeders.

was disappointed that the Government did not see its way to construct a line between Oudtshoorn and Ladismith, that had been brought to the notice of the Government for many years, and he almost despaired of getting recognition for it. If that line was constructed it would serve 27,000 people who were not 10, or even 20 miles from the railway, but 60 to 70 miles. The district represented a Divisional Council valuation of four millions, which as they knew represented only about a third of the actual value. Some years ago in the old Cape House of Assembly, when this line was advocated, an hon. member stated that they wanted this line constructed simply to carry away their goatskins. At that time he could only excuse the hon. member because he did not know what the district could produce if it had the opportunity. Different members of the Ministry had passed through the district and had given them very sage advice. They had asked them not to put all their eggs in one basket, meaning that they should not confine themselves to the rearing of ostriches. They said it was useless for the Government to build railways simply to carry away ostrich feathers, but the fact was that they were compelled to grow ostrich feathers for the simple reason that if they grew other produce they could not take it to market, because they were sixty miles from the railway. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out that the railway from Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp could be constructed for £105,000, and for very much less if they used secondhand material. If they were only to build railways which would pay from the start then they would not be able to open up the country at all.

said he was in favour of the Bill. He would have been very glad, however, to see the Port Elizabeth-Avontuur line completed. The original plan was to terminate the line from Avontuur at Doornrivier, 45 miles and the Minister should include such a line in his next programme. A good deal of fruit was grown in Humansdorp for export, and that export took place via Cape Town, as Port Elizabeth was not so well equipped. The line from Avontuur to George would give much satisfaction to the inhabitants. He supported the hon. member for George, believing that a line from George to Knysna was most necessary in order to develop the country and help forward the people there.

said if there was any chance of carrying it he would propose that the second reading be discharged and that the Bill be referred to a Committee on Railways for the sake of getting some further information, for that was highly necessary. The hon. member for Ladismith had made a suggestion, and said it was his policy to vote in favour of all proposals which were brought forward to clear out of the way those almost indefensible proposals, so that by a process of elimination they could get to something that was justifiable. He (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) suggested another course; the hon. member should vote against the proposals. It was only because the votes of members might be taken for granted that they did not get their railways. That view of the question was well worth thinking about. A large proportion of those proposals were dictated by political necessities, and not by what was in the best interests of the whole of the country. The hon. member went on to explain his object in wishing to refer this Bill to a Committee on Railways. The committee, he said, whether it was the present Committee on Railways or one constituted for that particular purpose, which to his mind might be more appropriate, or a Select Committee, should be a committee before which certain responsible people would have to appear, the chief responsible engineer, for instance. Those experts on the business side would have to show what the traffic would be, and how they arrived at the statement of the profit and loss, and even the Secretary to the Treasury to show where the money was to come from.

The money was not available for that programme. They did not know whether the programme was intended to be carried out or not, or whether it was a programme cut out for a little window-dressing, and to satisfy a certain number of aspirations throughout the country, with the prospect that later on it would be found impossible to carry out the programme, so that the sense of gratitude for favours to come would be stimulated until next session, and everything would be all right. He believed that if it were possible to carry that proposal to refer the matter to a Select Committee they would get valuable information. The information put before the House was absolutely insufficient. There was no justification shown for voting millions of money. It was not the way to start an important business such as the railway business of the country. Nobody would dream of doing such a thing in his own private affairs. He himself and many hon. members would like to got the Railway Board before the Select Committee and ask them how they arrived at their conclusions. As they had not got the powers of the Board defined nobody knew what the powers of the Railway Board were. Let them take some lines that had already been referred to. The hon. member for Ladismith had pointed out the necessity of a line in the South-western district connecting Ladismith and Oudtshoorn. He gave the numbers of the population that was likely to be served at 46,000. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Weenen, had quoted a railway which was to serve six persons, and that railway was included, while the one to serve 46,000 was left out. They were wasting public money to satisfy some reason—they were not in a position to understand what, but it was not a business reason, that was plain to everybody. If they could have the Board before them they could ask it from what point they had started, and what was their object. Let them take another line which had been referred to by hon. members representing constituencies in the Transvaal. He referred to the line Bethel to Volksrust via Amersfoort and Wakkerfitroom. He had made inquiries, and he had never been able to find a man inside the House or out of it who could define that line, or could even say why that line was proposed. Members representing those parts even did not seem to know the reason.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

resuming his speech on the motion for the second reading of the Railways construction Bill, said that before the House adjourned he was presenting to the House the view that had been expressed several times that they should have sufficient information before them to enable them to deal with the proposals put before them. The total the House was asked to vote was round about three millions. He thought it had already been pointed out that in connection with the programme already before the country there was a liability of about the same amount. He understood that in the opinion of the engineers it would not be possible to complete more than £2,000,000 worth of work already in hand. That being so, it was not easy to understand why this programme had been put forward at all. If the expert advisers said they could not do more than £2,000,000 worth of the work still in hand, what was the use of putting any programme of three millions before them.

Where did you get that?

From the engineer’s report. It might not be reliable, and it is not consoling, but it is the only information that we have got to go upon. Continuing, he said that before dinner he put forward the view generally held on that side of the House that this Railway Bill ought to be referred either to the existing Committee on Railways or the Select Committee appointed for the purpose of going into the programme. They did so for several reasons. The first reason was that they would be able to clear up this point that seemed to be in doubt that even if they voted and provided money, the expert advisers said they could not do the work. Hon. members who had been enthusiastic for their Province or their constituencies might profitably reflect on that and ask what they were really getting out of this programme. It was a promise certainly, but they had better promises before. Perhaps the promise would be repeated next year, but were they doing any business. The whole thing was an illusion. Here was a proposal which on the face of it, in the terms of the report of the expert advisers, could not be carried out, and hon. members had it earlier in the season that they had not got the money, so what were they voting the programme for.

This was one of the questions he would like to put before witnesses who would come before the Select Committee. They should ask them how much work they had got in hand, how much there was still to do, and how much they could do. It was senseless to vote for more work to be done if it could not be done. Then they should ask whether this programme represented what in their opinion was best in the interests of the country, and he was sure as he stood there that the answer would be no. This had been laid down to the Railway Board which, in the unforgettable terms of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance, was the Magna Charta of the Interior to secure non-political lines to interior parts of all the Provinces of South Africa. But this Board had been knee haltered straight off. They could not do so because they were not allowed to say what they knew was best in the interests of the country. Every session they had put it forward that in the interests of the country, in the interests of members of the House, in the interests of constituencies and constituents, and most important of all, in the interests of the Minister in charge, they ought to get a frank statement of what, in the opinion of these men, was best for the country. It was represented that they wanted to enable this Board to dictate to the Government the programme to be undertaken. Nothing of the sort. The Government was secured under the Act of Union, Parliament was omnipotent, and there was no suggestion that the Board should have that power. What they asked what was that they should follow the procedure of every single man of common sense and business, who, when he employed an expert adviser said: “Never mind your prejudices. Tell me the truth, because I have got to put my money in.” But the Railway Board could not tell the truth if they were going to put into their mouths what they had to tell them. Hon. members would go on condemning the Board until they understood that the Board had never been tried and had never been asked what in its opinion was best for the country. As one hon. member had said, he had not heard one good word said in favour of the Bill. Almost every member who had spoken had spoken of some particular line which was better than one included in that Bill. He believed it must be so because that member knew that particular line, and because he knew the requirements of his district better than the requirements of any other He could bring forward schemes, better schemes, for Pretoria or Harrismith. He was not going to do so. It would not be the best thing.

They wanted non-political views of the members of the Railway Board. Their business had been to travel through the country and find out what was best for the country, and they must know more about the requirements of the country and what was best for the country than anybody else who did not go travelling through the country. It had been their business, and their only business, to find out what was best. Could it be contended that anybody who looked at the matter impartially would recommend the Dalton line or that peculiar loop at Wakkerstroom as transcending in importance the development of the Northwestern districts in the Cape, or the connecting by trunk lines of Natal and the Cape through East Griqualand. It was impossible that anybody could put forward this programme believing it to be the right thing. There was another point. Speaking as representing Pretoria and district it had been represented to him that there should be a certain line of development up there. They might be right and they might be wrong, but he did not know, because he was not an expert. There was country that could be and ought to be, and he thought would be, developed. How it was to be developed to the best advantage he could not tell. Was there anything to tell them why there should be a line from Carolina through Swaziland to the coast to enter into competition with a line that ran east and west to the coast? It seemed to him that the Government had taken up this scheme on the totally indefensible and non-Union line that the four Provinces must be satisfied without regard to what was best for the interests of South Africa. It was provincialism in its worst possible form. The Government had three millions of money, and to keep these people quiet they had given Natal so much, the Cape so much, the Free State so much, and the Transvaal so much, and that was how the thing had been done. Anyone who looked at the scheme could see that such was the case. It was provincialism run mad. If he had the power of the Minister he might have done the same, except for this, that he would have had the sense, he thought, to put up the barrier that the National Convention provided—to put up this non-political body and say: “Give me your advice, and if I depart from that advice I will do so on my own responsibility and suffer the loss.” The Government had given them a programme and said: “Tell me whether it is good or bad, whether it will pass muster or not. I don’t want you to make comparisons. Just keep where you are and do what you are told and mind your own business.”

If by persuasion they could insist that this scheme should go before a Select Committee the engineers would be called and the House would be able to settle the question of the North-west line. He had listened sympathetically to the proposal to construct that line, but he was just as puzzled over it as he was last year, when the discussion began. Certain statements were made that there was a large area which was capable of producing an enormous quantity of wheat, but another statement was made that the area was all right, but there was an insufficient supply of water. Yet they were going to make the railway connection with a view to discharging the wheat into the northern market, a market which—if all that was said was true—would be flooded in a week, so vast was the probable output declared to be. They were not going to get away from it. The cost of production would have to be kept down if South Africa desired to compete in the world’s market. But a person like himself put this question “Are you right to develop with a connection to the north or should you develop with a connection nearer the sea, Where you are more closely in touch with the markets of the world?” There was much to be said for both points, but so little was known that the only sensible course was to refer the matter to a Select Committee where those who gave evidence would not be able to circumscribe their views as they could do when they supplied a written report, but in a Select Committee they could be raked with questions fore and aft. That was what anyone would do if they dealt with their own affairs. There was not a member of that House who would buy a horse on the terms on which they were proposing to spend three millions of the country’s money. (Opposition cheers.) There was an estimate that there was going to be a loss of £115,000, but it was not known whether that was going to be an annual loss or a permanent loss. £115,000 was the interest on three millions of money, and if the £115,000 represented an annual loss it would double the cost of the lines. Hon. members should remember when they voted for these nonpaying lines that they were voting a burden of six millions and not throe millions. He had no doubt that the Minister would say that that was nonsense and that this loss was only the first year’s loss. That might be so, but there was no evidence, no figures and no report, and as a businesslike proposition they must own up to it, and estimates of loss always erred on one side. If that loss was going to last very long they would have to take it as a serious factor in the cost of the undertaking.

He knew that it was hopeless to propose that the order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Try it

It would be misconstrued, and would be taken as an attack on all railway development.

That means that you will not get much support.

It would have the support of the Minister if he voted according to his convictions. At this stage of the session, too, it would mean wrecking the Bill, and I do not propose to rake the chestnuts out of the fire for the Minister. Continuing, Sir Percy said that whether this Bill was wrecked or not would rest with the Minister’s side. They would carry out the work, or they would shirk it; they would come back here next year for congratulations or not. But they would not be able to tell their constituents that the hon. member for Pretoria East had referred the matter to a Select Committee, and had thereby prevented them from carrying out a magnificent scheme. He only wished to give them a warning. When hon. members advocated schemes which they knew were good, they could not do better than submit them to a competent, non-political tribunal, and then they would have the backing of nineteenths of the House—the backing of hon. members who did not want to be squared with lines for their constituents, and then railways would be built that would be conducive to the prosperity of South Africa. Unless railway construction proposals could be taken out of the region of political influence, those who could be comfortably relied on to support the Government would not get lines, no matter how good they might be. But Provinces and constituencies had to be squared and money must be divided up for fear that one or other of the four Provinces would take offence, but South Africa as a Union did not exist. That was the policy of the Government. (Opposition cheers.)

said he regretted that the Railway Board had received such a bad defence as that of the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), which would do the Board more harm than good. The Board had the right to introduce any report it liked best, and to state that it could be led was an insult to its members. The intention of the Convention was to remove railways out of the political arena, but the attempt had failed, because the financial side of the matter lay in the hands of the House, and as long as that continued, the railways would continue to be in the political field. Where he thought the Railway Board failed was in not presenting a general scheme for the whole of the Union, which should have regard to the development of the country in the future. He did not suggest that the House should accept such a scheme in toto. He hoped the other Provinces would do the same as the Free State. The Free State members had met and come to an agreement on railway matters.

Certain Free State members.

said the hon. member for Pretoria East had made a hopeless attempt to wreck the Bill. He had made an attack on the Railway Board which was tantamount to insulting them. As a member of the National Convention, the hon. member had helped in the attempt to put the building of railways outside the sphere of party politics, though the idea had failed. The Board could take independent action, but Parliament had to provide the money, and in that way it became impossible to keep the railways outside politics.

The Board ought to draw up a complete scheme for the whole of the Union in view of future railway expansion. Every line ought to be built in view of such expansion, and in that respect the Board might do more than they were now doing. It was to be hoped that the other Provinces would follow the example of the Free State. It was impossible for the three members of the Board to know the whole Union. In the Free State the members met together to discuss the railway plan, and to decide what was the most suitable extension for the development of the Free State. They went into matters very closely, and had drawn up a railway scheme. If they now examined the report of the Board they would see that it comprised a small portion of the lines recommended in the Free State. The line to Bothaville was to be laid with a view to its extension to Koffiefontein. It was a good line, and might become a second main line if it should be connected direct with De Aar. The members from the Free State had come to an agreement in approving the proposed lines in that Province.

The hon. member for Pretoria East had stated that there was no money with which to carry out the programme, but if they were only to build lines which were to pay from the very beginning, then there would be very few that would be built. They built railway lines in order to develop the country and to make it habitable. If a line were built in the west of the Free State it could be made to produce much more than at present, and would also accommodate many more people.

The hon. member for Umlazi had brought forward some very important points, which the Minister ought to take carefully into consideration. In the laying of a railway line they should not be afraid of higher costs if it would lead to great improvements. They had already had sufficient unfortunate experiences on that point.

Narrow-gauge railway lines ought to be abolished. He had personally seen all the trouble that ensued at Kalabaskraal, where the unloading and re-loading had to take place, and had been forced to the conclusion that narrow-gauge lines in conjunction with broad-gauge lines was a foolish proposition.

The Bill ought not to be referred to a Select Committee, as that would result in its miscarrying. Money invested in railways was well invested, and it was a sort of investment that was badly wanted in the interest of the development of the country.

replying on the debate, said that he would not occupy the House long. To tell the truth, it must be admitted that, on the merits of the individual lines proposed by the Government to this House, there had been hardly any criticism directed. (Hear, hear, and dissent.) He said, “on the merits of the individual lines.” The whole of his hon. friends opposite had taken refuge behind the fact that there was inadequate information. One after the other had said he did not intend to go into this matter, because he could not judge, owing to having inadequate information. He could understand the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and also that of the hon. member for Yeoville; but the hon. member for Fordsburg declined to discuss the Bill on its merits, because he said there was not sufficient information before them. The observations of the hon. member were always tending to impute improper motives. He did not know, and on his side he was not going to follow the matter up. The hon. member had dealt with what he considered as being the basis of those proposals, viz., that it had nothing to recommend it, and was instigated by nothing but a series of political necessities. He (the Minister) knew perfectly well, of course, that nothing would please the hon. member for Pretoria, East, and some other hon. members on the other side of the House, though not all, for some took a broader view: but nothing would please some hon. members on the other side of the House better than if the Government was to fail in carrying out a scheme of railway development. They all knew what the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was hankering after: to tell the country and his constituents when he got back that that inept incompetent Government had in two successive sessions to withdraw its Railway Bills. That was what the hon. member was after, and he took them on that side of the House for very simple folk if he thought they did not see his little game.

Hon. members had used the argument that they did not know how the Board operates, how it did its work, and so forth. Well, the answer to that was that the Board did its work exactly in the way claimed by the National Convention, of which the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was a member. His hon. friends forgot sometimes the noble work they had done in the past. They were not sufficiently conscious of the great deeds they had done in South Africa, and they were apt to forget how they had laid traps for themselves. With regard to the construction of railways and proposals for railway construction, the Railway Board operated exactly as the Constitution decided that it should operate. The hon. member said they did not know how the Railway Board initiated railway proposals. They asked if the Railway Board had had a chance, and wanted to know if the Board had ever been invited to submit a scheme. Well, under the Constitution they were not allowed to submit a scheme. (Ministerial cheers.) There was nothing clearer than that. Whatever else the scope of their function might be with regard to railway matters it was laid down specifically that the Railway Board should report upon the proposals submitted to it by the Government. He did not put that clause into the Constitution. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, put that in.

It is not there. Read out the words.

There must not be so much interruption.

said the hon. member knew perfectly well that he (the Minister) was not using the exact words; but it was the duty of the Board to report. That was one of the hon. member’s great grievances, and he might be right, but at all events, with the present state of the law in the matter of railway construction it did not go beyond that length. The Board operated in that way. Under those circumstances the Government had suggested certain lines for the Board to consider. He intended to be frank about the matter. The Government asked the Board to investigate those proposals and to report upon them. They had done so. Let him say at once, with regard to the criticisms that the Board could not be expected to know anything about the matter —the arguments of the hon. members on the other side of the House the next moment had been that they did not know the Board’s view on the matter—but with regard to their not knowing anything about those proposals. Every time there was a suggestion from the Government about the proposed railway lines the Board did not confine the matter to a visit in a motor car. They started by getting their trained officers to examine the proposals, and it was not until their investigations were laid before them, and they had a full report from their officers, that they proceeded to investigate themselves. The hon. Minister proceeded to read extracts from clause 130 of the Act of Union which stated that proposals for the construction of railway lines before being submitted to Parliament should be considered by the Board, which should report thereon.

Before being submitted to Parliament.

Was there any doubt that the Constitution did not intend that the Board should initiate railway proposals. Proceeding, he said the hon. member had difficulty in keeping outside of his arguments the influence of the great inland section, but how many of the lines proposed by the Government in that Bill were otherwise than inland. They were practically all inland. These lines were built in such a way as to develop the agriculture inland in South Africa. As to the Board never having been given a chance: had they ever given that non-political body a chance? Let them take that North-western line, and see what had happened in the matter. This was to serve the grain centres of the North-west Province, and the Railway Board not merely made exhaustive inquiries, but they went themselves and personally inspected all the seven different routes mentioned in that connection. They considered the matter with the greatest possible fullness and care, and he would frankly admit it had been an extremely difficult question to deal with. The argument of the hon. member for Victoria West, who would have them believe that they were doing a wrong thing in going to Carnarvon, because the true point to start from was Victoria West. In the first place (proceeded the Minister) his proposal was criticised, because it involved going from Carnarvon through something like some fifty miles of Karoo ground before it would get to rich soil. He admitted there would be something like forty miles of what they called Karoo sheep country which had to be crossed. There was no doubt about that, but it was not entirely barren, and it was worth occupying; but it was not the same kind of thing they would expect to get from the rich grain centres.

When he went from Carnarvon and travelled to Calvinia, he not only got to the town which was the principal seat of occupation, but also a considerable distance into the very heart of the grain country.

It’s the same with Victoria West.

If you build an additional 60 miles, and spend another quarter of a million. Continuing, he said he would tell the House that, if they went through Victoria West, they would have to travel from Victoria West to Loxton, also through sheep Karoo country.

How much?

Forty miles. Continuing, he said he thought it was true that from the Victoria West side they got a little earlier to the rich country.

Very much earlier.

A little earlier. The deviation from Carnarvon gets you much quicker into the grain country. Continuing, he said that, under these circumstances, they found there was not much in the matter of advantage to choose between the two ways of approach. But they had this disadvantage on the Victoria West side— the line would be nearly parallel with the main line. In addition, and it was a point that largely governed his decision, they would have had to make up their minds to spend an extra quarter of a million. All these things had been gone into by the Railway Board. Everyone of these lines had been inspected, surveyed, and carefully considered. He did not suppose any non-political expert had ever taken so much trouble in coming to a decision as the Railway Board had done in regard to this North-Western line. His predecessor, after a great deal of investigation, was convinced that the Board had suggested the right line. (Hear, hear.) There was no question of political interest here, because they were all agreed that the North-West required a line (Hear, hear.) This was a pure matter of honest difference of opinion under the circumstances; therefore it was extraordinary that the hon. member for Pretoria, East, should come here and suggest that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. He (the Minister) did not know what was to become of the arrangement come to under the Act of Union. (Hear, hear.)

He did not know what view was being taken now as to the position of the Board. Originally it was constituted with the object that any suspicion of political influence should be avoided. (Hear, hear.) They had got there an honest, non-political body, which expressed an honest, non-political unbiassed view. They no sooner had these recommendations of this non-political body than the hon. member for Pretoria, East, came forward with his Select Committee. What was presented to the House was not his (the Minister’s) scheme, it was not the scheme of his predecessor, it was the result of the unanimous opinion of the Railway Board after a most full, thorough, and careful enquiry. (Hear, hear.) And now this suggestion was made here by the hon. member for Pretoria, East. Well, the hon. member was wisely advised not to press it further, and although the Government did not mind taking the responsibility for this Bill upon their own shoulders, he still thought that the hon. member might perhaps have been influenced in not insisting upon having this Bill referred to a Select Committee by other reasons than that the Government had a majority on their side. Possibly there were other obstacles which had led the hon. member to adopt such a virtuous attitude. One of the main criticisms had been, in the first place, that the Government could not finance these lines. There was a curious solicitude evinced by hon. members on this score. He would warrant that if he had proposed that, his Carnarvon connection was to go round Van Rhynsdorp, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would have let them off more easily. (Laughter.) Of course, circumstances altered cases. In regard to these matters, however, surely there would be ample time for hon. members opposite to condemn the Government when they actually found that they (the Government) were unable to finance these schemes. Were not hon. members a little premature?

Then they had heard certain criticisms in regard to the costs of the lines from such a great expert as the hon. member for Yeoville. Really, the Minister said, he had been disappointed. He had hoped to have received a little credit for the substantial reductions in the cost of the proposals presented to the House. They proposed to reduce this cost by something like £800,000. Personally, he know what a politician had to expect, but even if he had not received the credit for himself, some little credit might have been given to the Railway Board. “But,” the Minister went on, “if you have a Railway Board of archangels, they would not satisfy hon. members opposite.” Last year a Bill was introduced providing for something like £800,000 more. If that Bill had had the fate to proceed in that House, there would have been the most fierce criticism against the Government, the Railway Board, and the Minister, because of the great expense. In fulfilment of the promise he gave with regard to light railways he had come forward with a scheme on that basis, and now the hon. member said: “What an unreliable body the Railway Board is? They must have been wrong last year, or they must be wrong this year, for they must be wrong at some time.” It did not matter what they did in connection with railway construction or railway administration so long as they had Parliament supreme he did not care what perfect body of people they appointed to carry out these duties they would never satisfy Parliament, because it did not matter what proposals they brought forward there would always be some discontented and disappointed people and there would always be criticism. Reference had been made to the impossibility of the Board doing proper work owing to the time wasted in motor cars. It was unfortunate that they had to race about in motor cars, but he did not suppose that any hon. member would suggest that the members of the Board should use ox-wagons instead of motor cars. (Laughter.) Considering the enormous area they would have to cover, he did not think that would be practicable.

The hon. member for Umlazi was surprised at all the reasonable people being on the Government side of the House, but he (Mr. Burton) was not, for that was only perfectly reasonable and logical. Let them be fair and let them look at these proposals apart from party bias or prejudice. Certain of the lines were short agricultural ones, but there were three principal ones. One was for the development of the North-west, and he hoped they were all agreed with regard to that line in principle, no matter how they differed over the route. The other two proposals were the Vierfontein-Kroonstad and the Idutywa-Umtata lines. Could it be said in the case of either of these lines that they were sops to the Government’s political supporters? The principle the Government had taken in the case of these lines was that they should be built in the best interests of the public and the country at large, and Government proceeded on that basis. Let him take as an illustration of the sort of criticism that had been directed at the proposal, the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The hon. member addressed himself to the Schroeders line with infinite humour and wit. The hon. member could not be accused of provincialism for his range of vision did not go that length; he was a pure parochialist— a Capetonian; his vision did not extend beyond the confines of the Cape Peninsula. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member enjoyed himself by referring to the fact that one of the lines would terminate in lot 14A, which he supposed must be a wilderness; but he thought another line was better because it terminated at a house. His hon. friend’s idea of agricultural development was not standing crops but houses. He was not satisfied with agricultural development unless one grew plenty of houses, and, he (Mr. Burton) supposed, shops. (Ministerial laughter.) What was the truth about these lines? They were proposed to be built in the best cultivated parts of the whole of South Africa— (Ministerial cheers)—not merely filled with wattle plantations—the subject of his hon. friend’s scorn—but dairy farmers. And that part of Natal was populated from an agricultural standpoint more thickly than any other part of South Africa—(Ministerial cheers)—and populated with an admirable class of farmer. But of course unless agricultural development exhibited itself in the shape of shops and houses they could not satisfy some people. In conclusion, Mr. Burton said that in committee he would give information to show how unjustified the criticisms had been. They should approach the matter from the standpoint of the true interests of South Africa, and he did not mind what criticisms were made on the Bill in that spirit.

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

moved that the Bill be set down for Committee stage to-morrow.

said he objected to that, because if the Minister was going to give the House plenty of information, judging by the character of his speech that evening, he would require a good deal more time in which to study the matter. The Minister should have an opportunity of meeting the Railway Board, for a more hollow statement or one showing a greater lack of information he had never listened to than the one which the Minister had made that evening in reply to criticism on the Bill.

said that the hon. member was out of order.

Am I to understand, Sir, that it is your ruling that I cannot give a reason why the Committee stage should not be taken to-morrow?

The hon. member cannot traverse the speech made by the Minister just now. (Ministerial cheers.)

Am I in order in connection with the fixing of the date of the Committee stage, to give reasons why I consider that it would be advisable in the interests of the Minister himself and of the House that the date should be extended?

If the hon. member gives reasons he will be in order.

I think it would be in the interests of the Minister and the members to have the date put down beyond to-morrow, so as to give the Minister an opportunity of consulting the Railway Board for the purpose of allowing him to give the House a good deal more information than we have had this evening. I believe that statement is entirely in order. I suggest that the Committee stage should be taken on Friday or Monday next.

I do not want to appear to be unreasonable or to go into Committee with unreasonable haste and I will therefore move that the Committee stage be taken on Thursday.

The motion that the House go into Committee on Thursday next was agreed to.

moved that Order No. 2—the House to go into Committee on the Natives Land Bill—be discharged and set down for Monday next.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that Order No. 3—the House to go into Committee on the Railways and Harbours Regulation. Control and Management Bill— be discharged and set down for Monday next.

said he thought the House was justified in asking the Government as to whether it intended to go on with this measure. Hon. members saw the Order on the paper and they thought Government had made up its mind as to the business of the House. No objection had been made to deferring the Committee stage of the Natives Land Bill, but it was only fair to the House that the Prime Minister should say whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill or not. Before they took the motion moved by his hon. friend, he thought it was due, as a mere act of courtesy from the Government, to tell the House whether it was their honest intention to go on with this Bill or not. If it was their intention to go on with this Bill, they were taking a very foolish course in asking that the Order be discharged.

said he was not prepared to make any statement at present. The Bill had gone through a Select Committee, and should not take much time in Committee of the whole House. If there were a chance of carrying the Bill through, that would be done.

That means that it is a “slaughtered innocent.”

said that the point really was whether hon. members should devote their time to studying this Bill, to which they had already given a considerable amount of time.

The motion was agreed to.

asked whether he would be in order in moving an amendment to the preamble at that stage.

said the preamble would be taken last.

On clause 3, Cancellation of titles,

said he hoped the Minister would agree to the deletion of this clause. It was proposed that certain laws should be cancelled, in so far as they referred to these particular grants, and he hoped that this clause would not be passed, by the committee.

asked whether the Minister would give them the reason for giving up the quitrent mentioned in this clause? Quitrent certainly had the effect of retaining a recognition that the Crown was still the owner of the land.

said that the quitrent was not to be abolished, and would 8be paid in the future as in the past, only in a different manner.

said that this was confirmation of what his hon. friend urged on the second reading debate, that the Government proposed to take away certain land which was vested in the Municipality.

It has never been vested in the Municipality.

In point of fact that commonage was looked upon as the heritage of the Municipality. (Voices “No.”)

said that the land to which his hon. friend referred was used by a certain number of people as communal grazing ground. Under arrangement a large number of these people were establishing small farms at that place, but they were not taking away from anybody any of their property. Instead of occupying these lands under communal tenure, they were going to have certain portions allotted to them according to their rights.

said that was a point he was not clear about at all, but he did not think it arose on this particular clause. Clause 14 seemed to him to vest the whole of the rest of the commonage, amounting to a large tract of country, not in the town, but in a committee of erfholders, a committee of those men who got their individual lots. It seemed to him that, instead of it being vested in a committee of erfholders, it should be vested in the body that represented the community, the Municipality.

asked if the Minister would accept a motion that the consideration of this clause stand over until the preamble had been considered?

ruled that such a motion could not be accepted.

said it was distinctly laid down that this quitrent should be abolished. That was the object of repealing the Acts. The whole thing, to his mind, rested on clause 3.

said that the quitrent was not abolished.

said the members of the Labour party had no opportunity to speak on the occasion of the second reading.

expressed dissatisfaction at the Minister’s reply.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 4, Surveys and grants of gardens near village,

moved to omit the following: “Every such title shall be free of quitrent, and no purchase money shall be payable in respect of the land granted under this section: Provided that every such title shall contain such conditions and reservations as are usually inserted in grants of Crown land in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.” In response to an interjection by Mr. Duncan, he thought it might be desirable to leave the proviso, and he would move that.

was understood to say that they were small plots of land, and they would have to invent a coin which represented a small fraction of a farthing. They would have to combine the whole lot to come up to a penny.

said that, if they were going to agree to the amount of quitrent being a permanent one, that would be an excellent argument, but it did not apply. The amount of the tax that would have to be paid would be 10s, and no allowance had been made for the increased value of the ground. Their object was not to allow any alienation of State ground at all, and by alienating that ground, that principle would be established.

said that, with all deference to the hon. Minister, he would call his attention to clause 15, and he would see that the 10s. referred to opstallen, and altogether there were 54 morgen, on which they were paying 10s. per annum. The Committee would do very well to accept the amendment which he had moved, by deleting the words, “every title shall be free of quitrent and any purchase money to be payable in respect of land granted to that section.” Let them give it for nothing, and it was to be free from servitude, which hitherto had been laid upon land in that locality.

supported the amendment, and said it was not clear what the proviso meant. They were changing from land which was under servitude, and they were now giving to those people the freehold title. That was the alienation which had taken place. They had taken away land practically owned by the State, and handed it over to private individuals practically without any consideration whatever. They could not go back to their constituencies and defend a position like that.

said those opstallen were at present nearly all under bond, and immediately they got the freehold title of the land under that clause, they would lose their land. If the Committee passed the clause as it stood, without the deletion of those words, it was giving those opstallen to two sets of people—to a single individual in Mr. Van Zyl on the one hand, and the remainder of the holdings to the Rhenish Mission Society. He wondered if the hon. members and the Committee could see the situation. They were not giving the land to the present occupiers.

The amendment was declared to be negatived.

called for a division.

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

declared the amendment negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On new clause 12, Protection of holders of bond registered, etc.,

said that this clause contained one of the guiding principles of the Bill—the bondholder must be protected. This would prevent these people getting the benefits which the Minister said he wished to provide. He thought that this was an unjust provision. He said the committee was not justified in securing these money-lenders who had made a long shot in lending money without security. He did not think the Minister could defend such a provision.

said that he took the place of his right hon. friend on the committee, and he was partly responsible for the insertion of this clause. The effect of the clause was to prevent—

Robbery. (Laughter.)

Yes, robbery. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the owner of the erf would go to the bond-holder, and either arrange to have a bond passed over the opstal as well as the erf or make arrangements to pay off the bond. If the clause was passed without safeguarding the mortgagee it would be very unjust.

said apparently the way in which people lent money in that district was a curious one. Would any sane man lend money on the security of some grazing rights on the commonage?

Ministerial cries of “Why not?

said he was very much interested to know how one grazing right was to be separated from other grazing rights.

said hon. members on the cross benches wanted to rob the bond-holder of a portion of his security. The Bill protected the very people the hon. members were so very anxious about, but would not protect.

asked what became of the pathetic picture of those struggling pioneers who went out into the wilderness to settle on this land. The Minister was pleading for the bond-holders. This was a little bit of a job for a favoured few; there was a job coming on next Friday for some more influential people. (Cries of “Order.”)

said these stalwart pioneers borrowed money on the security of these rights, and he did not see why they should be able to run away with other people’s money. (Laughter and cheers.) He moved the omission of the word “Government,” and the insertion of “Registrar of Deeds.”

said he would accept the amendment.

said he thought he was partly responsible for the clause. What the Government was doing was taking the right of grazing, which hitherto had been attached to the erven in the village, and removing it from the erven on which money had been borrowed, and attaching it to the opstal. It was the duty of the committee to see that the bond-holders should be secured, but if the grazing rights were removed the moneylenders would be robbed.

wished to know whether they were to understand that what the money had been lent on was the grazing rights, and not the erven. The whole point appeared to him to be that the hon. member for Border, together with the Minister, wanted them to believe that these moneylenders, these simple, brainless individuals, were quite willing to lend sums up to £500 on one-twentieth of an erf, plus grazing rights. He was not sufficiently simple-minded to accept that position, though he knew very little about finance. (Hear, hear.) It must be obvious to the most simple-minded individuals that these moneylenders knew what was coming on in the near future.

said he would point out to the hon. member for Springs that the holders of the erven, in exercising their rights of grazing, had acquired a right to the opstallen where they kept their cattle. It had now been decided that they should have these places demarcated and that they should live there in future, instead of on the erven. It was not a question of meeting these moneylenders; it was simply a matter of protecting them. They were now getting these opstallen, instead of the erven.

The opstallen are not included.

said that they had no right to the opstallen. It was this Bill which gave them the right. The opstallen were a piece of land which these men had jumped from the commonage. How could the Rhenish missionaries or any one else advance money on a right which did not exist? They knew that the Government had a very soft place in its heart for anything in the nature of a landowner, small or great. The whole business had been perilously near a swindle from start to finish. This committee, consisting of a chairman, and, he thought, five other owners of erven in that locality, more or less self elected, had the power to make regulations.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

proceeding, said he was trying to sketch the history of this business and to show how the situation had arisen which necessitated the creation of this clause. It was simply to make legal what was up to now an illegal act in fencing in part of the commonage.

said he would suggest to the hon. member for Fordsburg that his amendment would not meet the case. He would, therefore, move: In line 58, to omit “Government,” and to substitute “officer authorised to issue such title.”

said he would like to ask the hon. member for Fordsburg if he meant that, because certain people lent money on grazing rights and erven, the Government should, in addition to these rights, give these people the opstallen and make a present of that security to the bondholders.

said he thought they both speculated. The Government for a reason which he thought was satisfactory were going to put an end to that state of affairs by deciding to give individual title. It would not be fair that the opstallen holder should get the individual title of the land without any responsibility.

The amendment moved by Mr. Duncan was withdrawn.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Lands was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 11,

said he noticed that in that clause the Committee were asked to be very liberal to those people who were not whiling to pay their survey. He said that the cost of survey of any land granted under the Act should be borne by the Government in the first instance and that each grantee shall be liable to be paid to the Government a share of such costs apportioned to the extent of the land granted to him. It did not say that he shall pay.

Read further.

said they had a right to expect that those people who were going to have that magnificent present should pay the costs of their survey. It was time they put a period to the unbounded benevolence of the Government’s landed interests, and he would move in line 61 to delete the words “be liable” and also to delete the words “a share of.”

said that if the hon. member would read further he would find that he had not seriously considered the matter, for what he wanted was done by the section.

said that the hon. Minister had overlooked the fact that an amendment had been moved which made the intention he expressed much clearer.

said the amendment would make the meaning clearer.

said there was no objection to the deletion of the words “be liable,” and he would move that.

said that in view of the intention that the survey fees should be recovered he would withdraw the amendment.

The first amendment was agreed to, and the second amendment was, with leave of the committee, withdrawn.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 12,

On the motion of Mr. DUNCAN,

put the amendments proposed by the Select Committee in lines 12 and 13.

said he would like to have an explanation. The clause proposed to give individual rights to certain holders of the outer commonage. But it went further. It meant to vest the title of this ground in the erf holder. In extent it was something like 86,000 morgen. These were rights they had never had before, and to his way of thinking they were not rights that should be given now. The history of this place was the same as the history of many other places in the country. Erven were laid out to be occupied, and large tracts of territory were added over which the erf holders were given grazing rights. When the community increased and other people came for trade and other reasons, what was done? This common land was not vested absolutely in the erf holders, but was handed over to the Town Council for the whole of the inhabitants. Where would a place like Durban be if the course that was proposed in this Bill had been pursued there?

said he agreed entirely with his hon. friend. The Municipality of Carnarvon had no right to this ground whatsoever. In 1858 or 1860, for the purpose of settling the North-western district, a number of people were located in the Carnarvon district. They were given 110 erven with certain grazing rights on the outer commonage of Carnarvon. With every erf there were attached certain grazing rights. The commonage was practically useless, however, till water was secured. All that was proposed in the Bill was that instead of the whole of the erven having a right over the 80,000 morgen of commonage, the ground should be divided up. The people of Carnarvon had no right over this commonage, which was really the property of the people who owned the erven. Consequently the House was not being asked to give people something to which they had not a proper title.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had told the committee that these people had rights over the outer commonage, but he had failed to tell them that they also had rights over the inner commonage. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said, he considered that the point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg was an absolutely sound one. This vast area of land, over 160,000 acres, was going to be vested in a committee elected by about 20 or 30 persons, while the people of Carnarvon would have absolutely no rights, no title, and no say in the management of what ought to be their domain. In his opinion, it was a most retrograde step to take.

said that he was prepared to move that the land should be vested in the municipality instead of the committee, but if what they had been told was correct, he thought the clause might be omitted altogether. If the Crown was going to part with this land at all, it should not be to a committee, but to the community as a whole. In conclusion, he said he would move that all the words from “committee” down to “section 10” be deleted, for the purpose of substituting the words “Municipality of Carnarvon.”

said that his hon. friend seemed to have been carried away by the eloquence of members on the cross-benches. (Laughter.) The case had been correctly put by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said his right hon. friend had not yet answered a pertinent question.

said he did not think they were acting rightly in vesting in a few private people a large tract of country. He was speaking now of the commonage; hitherto nobody had anything but grazing rights over that, and now it was being handed over to private people.

said if his hon. friend would look up the deed and read it carefully, he would see that those 108 people were granted absolute rights of farming operations. All that was now proposed was that it should be given to them under individual tenure, so that each individual would take an interest in its development.

said that it was not a question of ownership of grazing rights. It was a matter of the ownership of a huge tract of country being given into the hands of a small committee. He moved that progress be reported. The House sat every night of the week, and at 11 o’clock they had been accustomed to adjourn.

said the Bill was before the House last year. If he had any doubts whatever he would gladly concede to the request to report progress.

said it was not fair on the part of the Minister with his cast-iron majority to endeavour to steam roller the thing through at this late hour (11.2 p.m.) when there was left in the House only a small band of members who tried to put forward certain matters of principle, and who naturally were tired. The hon. members on the Government side, however, who were trying to steam-roller them were not doing the work.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member is an excellent judge of nonsense—he is associated with it so closely. (Laughter.)

The motion to report progress was negatived.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew his demand.

said he thought the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fordsburg was perfectly correct.

said that if the original grant was made to the present erfholders, why should they put it into the Bill? The Minister wanted to make quite sure that these people should get this land.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan was negatived.

The amendments proposed by the (Select Committee were agreed to.

said he would move to delete the whole clause.

The hon. member may vote against the clause.

The clause, as amended, was declared to be agreed to.

called for a division. As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Alexander, Andrews, Brown, Creswell, Duncan, Madeley, and H. W. Sampson) voted against the clause,

declared the clause agreed to.

On clause 13,

moved: To add at the end “provided that where no opstal has been selected in respect of any erf, the annual tax aforesaid shall be payable by the person entitled to select such opstal, or by the person entitled to the rights referred to in section 10 hereof.”

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and the amendments were set down for consideration to-morrow.