From H. Mentz and 69 others, inhabitants of the electoral division of Namaqualand, praying for the extension of the railway from Graafwater to O’okiep.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that Order of the Day No. XX for to-day—Adjourned debate on motion for amendment of Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, to be resumed—be discharged, and set down for Wednesday, the 11th June.

Agreed to.

brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

The fifth report of the Committee was as follows: Your committee, having considered the various petitions referred to it, begs to report: 1. That it recommends: (1) The award to W. D. S. Lotter, late Senior Assistant Resident Magistrate, Cape Town, of a monthly allowance of £10 until such time as his health is sufficiently restored to enable the Government to offer him reemployment, to take effect from the 1st April, 1913; (2) the award to H. A. Davidson, formerly constable, of a monthly allowance of £2 for a period of twelve months; (3) that the contributions to Cape Pension Funds erroneously accepted from S. W. Nash, Outdoor Officer, Customs Department, in respect of his service from 1st September, 1906, be refunded to him, in order that he may have the opportunity of becoming a contributor to the Union General Division Pension Fund, which would carry with it the option of paying arrears in respect of his whole service from 1901, under the provisions of the Public Service and Pensions Act, 1912; (4) the award to J. H. R. Barnard of a gratuity of £50, for injuries sustained when in the employ of the Forest Department; (5) that G. W. Klerck, clerk, Agricultural Department, be permitted to count for pension purposes on retirement, one-half of his total service under the Table Bay Harbour Board, subsequent to his 17th birthday; (6) that the break in the service of J. T. Wait, labourer, Railway Department, from 25th May, 1902, to 17th November, 1902, be condoned for fixed establishment purposes; (7) that the break in the service of T. D. Potgieter, lifter, Railway Department, from 18th May, 1902, to 15th December, 1902, be condoned for fixed establishment purposes; (8) that the break in the service of G. J. Malherbe, teacher, from 1st January, 1910, to 30th June, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (9) that, subject to the production of medical evidence to the satisfaction of the Superintendent-General of Education (Cape), the break in the service of May Dillon, teacher, from 1st January, 1910, to 31st December, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (10) that the break in the service of Esther M. Parker, teacher, from 1st July, 1899, to 30th September, 1907, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (11) that the break in the service of A. C. Joubert, teacher, from 1st July, 1904, to 30th September, 1906, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (12) that the break in the service of T. Webster, teacher, from 1st January, 1896, to 22nd October, 1899, be condoned, and that, subject to the production of evidence to the satisfaction of the Superintendent-General of Education (Cape) as to the cause thereof, the break in petitioner’s service from 1st January, 1902, to 12th March, 1905, be condoned; both breaks being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (13) that the break in the service of G. H. J. Sadler, teacher, from 1st April, 1905, to 30th June, 1910, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (14) that the break in the service of Margaret H. Cooney, teacher, from 11th August, 1906, to 30th June, 1908, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (15) that the break in the service of W. T. Jackson, teacher, from 1st April, 1909, to 31st December, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (16) that the break in the service of S. Olivier, teacher, from 1st July, 1911, to 31st December, 1912, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (17) that the break in the service of Petronella M. Pienaar, teacher, from 1st April, 1909, to 30th June, 1910, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (18) that the break in the service of Z. J. du Toit, teacher, from 1st January, 1912, to 31st March, 1913, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (19) that the time for registration be extended to 31st December, 1913, to such of the following petitioners who would, but for want of registration, have been entitled to the benefits of Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal), viz.: (a) L. H. Samuelson; (b) E. M. F. de Larue; (c) E. Wilson; (d) C. C. L. Mayhew; (e) M. E. Butler. 2. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained, viz.: (1) T. Byrne; (2) S. Emslie; (3) Fanny E. Slavin; (4) J. A. E. Markus; (5) P. M. Sheehan (with supporting petition from J. W. B. de Villiers and others); (6) F. J. Hendricks; (7) D. Donoghue; (8) Evelyn J. Appleby; (9) B. Gogela; (10) Louisa L. Heffer; (11) Jessie M. Rouse; (12) Lily Hansen; (13) T. Kenyon; (14) W. E. Dawes. 3. Your committee has considered the memorandum by the Treasury upon the Administration of Natal Act No. 31 of 1910 referred to it, but having regard to the legal question involved it is unable to express an opinion thereon.

The report was set down for consideration to-morrow.

laid on the Table correspondence between the Government and the Free State relating to the bursaries question.

Government Notice No. 823 of 1913 having reference to the amendment of certain regulations framed under the provisions of the Land Settlement Act, 1912.

said he wished, for the information of the House and the future guidance of members, to draw Mr. Speaker’s attention to a ruling he had given on Tuesday last. The matter which was reported on page 933 of the Votes and Proceedings, was as follows: “Mr. Silburn moved, seconded by Mr. Meyler: That all papers referred to by the Postmaster-General in his minute to the Postmaster of Durban, dated 5th December, 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.— Discussion ensued. During discussion, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs having stated that the documents called for in this motion were of a confidential nature, Mr. Speaker ruled that the discussion could not be proceeded with, and the motion accordingly dropped.” Continuing, Sir Thomas said the reason he raised the question was that the House might get the impression that it was not within its province to move any resolution a member desired, and also not to accept any motion put before it. He could understand the position of a Minister who said that a document contained information of a confidential character. The House had had the ruling of Mr. Speaker, and of previous Speakers, on that point, but that was not the matter he desired to call attention to. What he desired to know was, even if a Minister should make the statement that the documents in question contained information of a confidential character, was it not within the province of the House to adopt a resolution stating that certain papers should be laid on the Table. Naturally, if a Minister said that papers were of a confidential character, the House would consider very seriously before even by a majority calling for the production of such documents. He desired Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether it was not within the province of the House to demand the production of documents. A case might arise of the greatest corruption in an office of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) There had been such cases in other countries, but fortunately we had never had them here—and he thought we never would have—of the grossest corruption in connection with the purchase of land and things of that sort by a Government department. The House would be in an extraordinary position if it were not able to compel the production of documents. If a Minister still refused to produce those documents, then he took it the House would move a vote of no confidence in the Minister concerned, who would then have to resign. This had nothing to do with the case before the House, but his object in bringing the matter forward was that he earnestly desired to preserve in the utmost entirety the prerogative of members. Proceeding, the hon. member said he desired to direct the attention of Mr. Speaker to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Berry, in the late Parliament, in 1899, with relation to a case at Vryburg. Mr. Speaker Berry there stated that, except in most exceptional circumstances, a Minister should not quote from papers unless he could lay them on the Table, of the House. If the Commissioner, added Mr. Speaker Berry, refused or declined to lay these papers upon the Table of the House now, it would be open to any member to put a motion upon the paper calling for them, and if the Commissioner still persisted in refusing, it would be open for the House to decide what further steps should be taken.

Proceeding, the hon. member quoted from Sir Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, pages 538-539, as follows: “Returns may be moved for, either by order or address, relating to any public matter, in which the House or the Crown has jurisdiction. They may be obtained from all public offices and corporations, bodies, or officers constituted for public purposes, by Acts of Parliament or otherwise; but not from private associations, such as Lloyds, for example, nor from individuals not exercising public functions. The papers and correspondence sought from Government departments should be of a public and official character, and not private or confidential. The opinions of the law officers of the Crown given for the guidance of Ministers in any question of diplomacy or State policy, being included in the class of confidential documents, have generally been withheld from Parliament. In 1858, however, this rule was, under peculiar and exceptional circumstances, departed from, and the opinions of the law officers of the Crown upon the case of the Cagliari were laid before Parliament; but however ample the power of each House to enforce the production of papers, a sufficient cause must be shown for the exercise of that power; and, if considerations of public policy can be urged against the motion for papers, it is either withdrawn or otherwise dealt with, according to judgment of the House. The hon. member went on to say that the question of the production of the papers was dealt with or withdrawn according to the opinion of the House. It should not be simply withdrawn owing to a Minister stating that the documents were of a confidential nature. Was it not within the privilege of every member of this House, he asked, to table any resolution he desired in connection with any Public Department of Trade, and if a Minister stated that the information sought was of a confidential nature, then it was still within the prerogative of this House to pass a resolution that such documents should be laid upon the Table, and if the Minister still refused, then it was for this House to pass any resolution they might think fit, or even pass a vote of no confidence. He had raised this matter because he thought that if judgment was not given now, there was a danger of a precedent being laid down which would take away from members some of their privileges, the effect of which might be extremely serious.

The question raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort arises out of a motion calling for papers by the hon. member for Durban, Point. When the motion was before the House I could not tell, nor could any hon. member not cognizant of the facts tell, what the nature was of the papers in question. It was only upon the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs informing the House that those papers were papers which had passed between the heads of departments and were of a confidential nature, that I indicated to the House what was the principle followed in a case of this kind, not only in the House of Commons, but also in the late Cape House of Assembly for a great number of years. On the occasion in question the hon. member for Queen’s Town stated the practice correctly, a practice which he himself applied while he occupied the Chair for a considerable period in the late Cape House, and the quotation from the Speaker’s ruling in 1899 bears out the statement I made on the 27th instant. I intimated then that it was not usual, on a Minister stating that papers sought by way of a motion were of a confidential nature, and the Speaker guided the House in that direction, to take further action; but of course if the House declined to accept either the statement of the Minister, or to follow the guide indicated by Mr. Speaker—which would be a serious responsibility, as such action would be tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in the Government—it was quite competent for the House, despite such statement by the Minister, and despite such guidance from the Chair, to make such order as it may deem fit in the circumstances. That the House is absolute master of its own proceedings and even rulings given from the Chair, cannot be doubted for a moment. The statement by the Minister on the 27th instant, that the papers in question were of a confidential nature cannot preclude any hon. member, if he wished to do so, to table a motion to pursue this subject further. As pointed out by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort a Minister of the Crown cannot shield himself behind the plea that papers called for are of a confidential nature where the House considers the circumstances warrant an order for their production.

said that he thought the remarks just made by Mr. Speaker to a large extent met the question he had brought forward. He understood now that if the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn), on Tuesday last, had desired to maintain his right of speaking on the motion he could have done so. Mr. Speaker had apparently simply made a suggestion, although the House understood that he had really ruled that the hon. member for Troyeville was out of order and had no right to pursue the subject. If, however, the hon. member for Troyeville had said, “I demand my right to pursue the subject.” Mr. Speaker would not have ruled him out of order.

said he had wrongly understood Mr. Speaker’s ruling on Tuesday.

said he quite understood the Speaker’s ruling to be as now stated. What he wanted to say was that this was more than the prerogative of Parliament, it was the right of Parliament.

in moving the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Bill, was understood to say that in committee he would move that the amount should be reduced from two millions to one million. If it was found afterwards that more would be required he would come to Parliament again.

said that this was an opportunity for the Minister to make a statement with regard to the discontent that existed throughout the country at the use of cattle trucks for the carriage of coal. He hoped the Minister would make a statement on the subject.

said that what he had to say was nothing new, but owing to their importance he wished to bring two or three points to the notice of the House. The people of the North had not been as insistent as they might have been in bringing these matters forward at every opportunity. There was great dissatisfaction in the North at the omission of the Minister to deal with railway rates in the way they thought these should be dealt with. They objected to paying the amount of interest which was being paid on non-interest bearing capital with regard to the railways. It amounted to nearly half a million a year, and people in the North claimed, whether at Bloemfontein, Johannesburg, or Pretoria, with a great deal of justice, that all this money was being paid by them, and that they were asked to contribute more to the revenue of the State than they should do. He believed that the lawyers were on the side of the Minister.

They are against me.

Well, on the side of the Treasury. Continuing, he said that at any rate, the position was still the same. He suggested that the Minister should, if he could, give them some relief—it might be an argument when he made a reduction in some other direction. The Railway Board in its last report took a hopeless view, because they saw no way out of it, though they asked for some modification. The Railway Board had always opposed this large sum of money being charged to the railways. The Minister might take the matter into consideration when he was considering any readjustment of railway rates. Then he referred to the loss of £250,000 on harbours. This was charged to the revenue of the railway, and while they did not object to paying their fair share, they objected to paying it all. Then there was the question of the non-reduction of railway rates to the North. The Minister saw no hope of making any substantial reductions in the near future.

I said in the immediate future.

I would like to know what the Minister means by that. Continuing, he said he thought that there was need for reductions and considered that it would be a long time before the railways were run on business lines. They took up a very strong attitude in regard to preferential rates, and there was a great deal to be said for the abolishment of this system. He was prepared to admit that there might be something said in favour of preferential rates on agricultural produce on the ground that the people concerned might enjoy an indirect gain. The produce, while being carried at a very cheap rate, might benefit the people who bought it, but there was no excuse whatever for continuing preferential rates on manufactured articles. In the interior this was a great handicap to the establishment of small industries. They were always told that they should not depend on the mines, and why should they be handicapped. A memorandum of the Master Builders’ Association effectively showed what they were suffering under this system of preferential rates, and he contended that manufactured articles should not be carried in this way. A clumsy and foolish attempt had been made to show that reductions in railway rates did not really reach the consumer. These attempts did not bear examination by any people who understood commerce at all. It must be remembered that though the rates on sheet iron, timber, etc., might be reduced, the price could not be immediately reduced, as that would mean a loss. Merchants had got their stocks to dispose of. No consideration seemed to have been taken of freights, increased cost of these articles, etc. The Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce had prepared a statement showing conclusively that these reductions did help the consumer, or otherwise, if these reductions had not been made in a number of cases, the particular articles dealt in by these people would have been increased instead of remaining where they were.

He hoped the Minister would be able to make up his mind. They were bitterly disappointed. They would be compelled in self-defence to do what they did not want to do. He did not think this House could generally charge the members from the Transvaal particularly with introducing a Provincial spirit. They had not asked for railways.

You have got them.

We have got them and we have paid for them. Proceeding, he said that Johannesburg was not the place it used to be. Competition there, as elsewhere, had put an end to the easy way of making money that people thought so common there at one time. Competition in Johannesburg and the towns of the North was tremendous. He had had a return prepared, showing the prices of things used in daily life in Cape Town and the prices in Johannesburg. That return showed that in numerous cases things were cheaper in Johannesburg.

Hear, hear.

said he did not think it necessarily showed that the Cape Town traders were making huge profits, but it pointed to the tremendous competition up-country, and the people there could not afford now to submit to pay unnecessarily high railway rates or unnecessarily high charges on anything. They could not go on submitting to the drain by having money taken from them in the way it was taken from them now. There was a profit of £1,900,000 last year, he believed, on the railways of the Transvaal. Everybody knew who gave the money. He was amazed that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister seemed to him to be so indifferent; he did not say they were, but there was no sign of any particular anxiety on their part about affairs in the North. They sat there and willingly submitted to see the people in the North—he did not want to use any strong word—get the worst part of the bargain. He hoped when the Minister came to sit down to consider railway rates, he would understand that they had got just grievances in the North.

said he would like to make a few remarks as to the financial condition of the railways. He did not take quite the optimistic view of his hon. friend who had just spoken in regard to the finances of the railway. He was sorry that the Minister had not laid on the Table the account for the last financial year. He would, therefore, have to do the best he could, and take the figures, to some extent, from the Minister’s own speech in introducing the Railway Budget. As far as he could see, in making a liberal estimate for additional receipts, the Minister calculated that he would have a balance on the right side of £143,000. In the face of this estimated surplus, he had laid Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure before the House which would amount to a total of £669,000. Taking £143,000 as the surplus, according to his estimate, he was left with a deficit of £526,000 on the year. The Minister had not yet indicated in any shape or form how he was going to provide for this £526,000, and he would like to ask him to give some explanation to the House as to how he intended to provide for this additional £669,000, which was laid before the House the other day.

said that, before the Minister replied, he would like to point out another question in connection with the railway rates. This arose in connection with the discovery made a few years ago that coal in the northern districts of Natal contained a higher percentage of nitrogen than any known coal in the world. The result had been that people interested in the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia had been studying coal in the north of Natal, and they were now prepared to start a company in the Vryheid district for the manufacture of this most important artificial fertiliser. They had made their arrangements—£200,000 was available for this Colonial industry; but when they came to consider the question of getting their machinery from Durban to the Vryheid district, they found that the rates asked for were absolutely prohibitive. They were asked to pay at the rate of £5 11s. 6d. per train mile, which worked out at less than 1,400 per cent. on the cost to the Government. In the meantime the Government were carrying artificial fertilisers, imported from oversea, at a very cheap rate upcountry. He would appeal to the Minister to go fully into this matter, and, rather than insist upon our farmers using imported fertilisers, to consider, seeing that the machinery which it was proposed to bring up was to be used solely for the purpose of producing these fertilisers as a Colonial product, whether this machinery could not be carried at something like an agricultural rate.

drew attention to the grievances of Durban in the matter of railway rates to places in the interior, it being held that that town suffered certain disabilities in this respect when compared with East London and Port Elizabeth. He had called attention to this matter on the Budget debate, and now reminded the Minister that no alteration had been made, and that Durban was still being unfairly treated. Geographically, Durban was nearer to certain interior town, such as Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Vryburg, Kroonstad. Ficksburg and Zeerust than East London and Port Elizabeth, but it enjoyed no corresponding advantage in railway rates, but it was found that if East London or Port Elizabeth had any geographical advantage they got the benefit in railway rates. He hoped that the present Minister of Railways would take a broad and more enlightened view, and would see that justice and fairplay were done. There was another matter to which he wished to direct attention, and that was the late arrival of the English mail at Durban. At present the train conveying the Imperial mail from Cape Town arrived at Kroonstad at 10.45 p.m. on Wednesday, and stopped there till 6.15 on the following morning, so that it did not reach Durban until late on Thursday night, and in consequence letters were not delivered to merchants and other people till Friday morning. The attention of the Railway Administration had been called to this matter, and it had been asked if the train could not leave Kroonstad immediately after the arrival of the Imperial mail. If that could be done it would be possible to get letters in Durban on Thursday, allowing another twelve hours before the departure of the return home mail, which would be a great advantage to merchants and others.

said he wished to support the contention of the hon. member for Troyeville. He had received a telegram from the Kimberley Borough Council asking him to bring up the question of the Railway Department not paying municipal rates on properties used for commercial purposes, but a better opportunity of discussing that question would arise on a subsequent Bill

said he wished to call attention to the discrepancy in coal rates. The rate charged from the Natal coalfields to Durban on coal for export was 5s. 6d. per ton, but the charge on coal to be consumed at Durban was 10s. a ton. It seemed to him to be an extraordinary anomaly that South African coal could be sold cheaper in other parts of the world than at Durban, where the price was 25s. to 30s. a ton, whereas coal for export purposes could be put on board ship at Durban at 15s. or 16s. a ton. In these matters the South African consumer deserved more consideration than he received at the present time. The whole of the export trade in coal was in the hands of the Union Castle Co., so that the Railway Department were sacrificing the interests of South Africa in order that the Mail Co. should reap the benefit.

said he did not suppose this was the best time to discuss the question of railway rates. (Cheers.) However, he regretted the recent action of the Railway Board on this matter, and he hoped that at an early date the position would be reconsidered. About a year ago the Railway Board arranged a reduction of rates, under which outstanding grievances were redressed. The new scale of rates was advertised, but unfortunately there was a certain amount of agitation from certain quarters, and deputations were sent from Durban and East London protesting against the change. Then the Railway Board, to the astonishment of everybody, amended the rates which it had taken months to consider, and altered them more or less back again to the disadvantage of the district which had been suffering under grievances for many years past. If the Board’s first decision was correct, and the alteration was made because of political pressure, that was most regrettable. By political pressure he meant by a number of centres through their Parliamentary representatives. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville, had spoken of the disadvantages of Durban as if it had suffered enormously as compared with Port Elizabeth, whereas Durban, to develop a certain amount of trade, that was opened up by Port Elizabeth, and for no other reason whatever, obtained improper advantages. (Cries of “No” and cheers.)

said he wished to associate himself with the views expressed by the hon. member for Troyeville as to the £455,000 extra interest. He also wished to agree with what the hon. member had said about the Union Harbours. Surely the proper way was to make harbours self-supporting. Those who lived inland would pay through the railway rates, and those at the coast would pay through the harbour dues. The condition of free and ample competition was disappearing more and more. The fact of it was that reductions had been made on the railway rates upon coal, but the small coal consumer was paying more than ever.

said he had nothing to add to his statement that the administration was doing its utmost to provide for the shortage in railway trucks. He wished to state that the question of the bunkering business in Durban and Cape Town was receiving the Government’s attention. As to the question of railway rates, he pointed out that modifications were continually necessary, and that they could never really claim that the last word had been said with regard to the question of reduction of rates. In regard to the financial position, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had stated that when the supplementary Estimates were taken into account they would really, instead of having a credit balance, have a deficit of £500,000. The hon. member made a mistake, because he had not taken any account of the surplus of £300,000 which he (Mr. Burton) had stated was to be devoted to railways. This amount was put into the Supplementary Estimates to be voted. The necessity for putting amounts like that in the Estimates in order to get them dealt with, was really one of the reasons why he was introducing this Bill. As the result, instead of there being a balance of £143,000, as he expected, there would be a deficit of £83,000.

The motion for the second reading was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

I hope the House will allow me to take the committee stage now.

The motion was agreed to.

in the ninth line, to omit the word “two” for the purpose of inserting “one.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On the Title,

A similar amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

The amendments were considered and agreed to.

whose opening remarks were quite inaudible, moved the second reading of the New Fiscal Divisions (Cape) Bill. He pointed out that this was one of those measures that did not entail additional expenditure. It was usual with a fiscal division that the Civil Commissioner presided over the meetings of the Divisional Council. That was by law. Here, however, provision had been made for the Magistrate at Calitzdorp— which was to be created a fiscal division— to preside at these meetings, and therefore, no additional expense would be incurred. The chief reason why a Divisional Council was required was in order to enable the roads to be kept in good order. He had found that with Divisional Councils, as with Municipal Councils, there was a good deal of human nature, and they were wont to spend money in some parts of a division and not in other parts.

said he thought that the Minister was drawing a very rosy picture when he said this Bill was not going to cost anything. If he thought that the people of Calitzdorp were going to be content with a Magistrate presiding at meetings of the Divisional Council then he thought he would be mistaken. He was sure that the Minister knew the sort of pressure that would be brought to bear on him. He would like the House to remember this point and see how long it took for the Calitzdorp people to attain to the higher dignity. The chief reason he thought why a Divisional Council was required at Calitzdorp was owing to the fact that the Divisional Council at Oudtshoorn had neglected these people who had come to the House for relief.

said he agreed with his hon. friend. The Minister of Justice would not be the Minister of Justice for all time. There had been an agitation for a new fiscal division, and it had succeeded. Later on would come an agitation for a Civil Commissioner. The present Minister of Justice might not agree to it but his successor would.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that Order 3 (House to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates) stand over until the two following Orders had been disposed of.

suggested that as members had not come prepared to deal with those other two Orders the Minister should proceed with Order 3 and deal with the other two orders immediately after dinner.

agreed.

said he had given notice of amended Estimates, and he would move that this vote be deleted.

Agreed to.

moved: That the amended Vote No. 32, “Provincial Administrations,” as increased, amounting to £2,205,308, laid upon the Table of this House on the 19th instant, be substituted in lieu of the Vote negatived.

moved to reduce the vote by £5. He wanted, he said, to ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention had been called to the proceedings that were going on in the Provincial Council here—(hear, hear)—and whether it was with his assent, or the assent of the Government, that laws were being passed which involved the carryout of services by Union officials? Union officials were the police. He was sorry that the Minister of Justice was not in the House but the Minister of Finance would probably be able to reply whether their constables, for instance, were to be turned into inspectors to go to every place of amusement, which was fortunate enough to obtain a licence to open its show, in order to see how many people were there and how things were being conducted, whether that was the function of the people whom they paid to keep the peace of the Union? Then, again, in an Ordinance which he saw was to be introduced for prescribing the speed at which gentlemen might drive motor-cars, and that hideous conveyance, the motor bicycle, and so on, were their police to be used for the purpose of checking these people? He noticed that another Ordinance that was being put forward in that body for the purpose of introducing religion into the schools—(hear, hear)—and a ridiculous little publication had been issued, a kind of shorter Catechism. It was not a thing to jest about, but he thought that at this time of day it must raise a smile on the dullest countenance if they were to go through this shorter Catechism, as framed by the Administrator of the Cape Province. It was a ludicrous thing that they were to spend money for antics of this kind. He wanted to ask the Minister seriously whether the Government of this country had no control over this sort of thing. First of all, there were two Ordinances being passed, which were according to the best legal opinion entirely ultra vires. The taxation proposed to be levied was in distinct contravention of the existing laws.

Hear, hear.

You are going to levy indirect taxation on the people in contradistinction to the law. It will have to fall on the shoulders of somebody or other to bear an immense deal of expense in trying to upset this. I want to know, is the Government powerless in these matters? I would like to know whether they are countenancing all these vagaries which are going on, because to my mind they are shamefully neglecting their duty if they are.

said he was glad to see the attitude the right hon. gentleman had taken. They were all agreed that the Provincial Councils should not be interfered with more than was absolutely necessary, but at the same time there was a distinct responsibility placed upon the Governor-General-in-Council by the Constitution, and he was glad to see that it was being recognised that Ministers had some responsibility in regard to what the right hon. gentleman had called the “antics” of those who may be placed as Administrators in the different Provinces. His purpose in rising was to call attention to another matter. He was sorry to see that the hon. member for Pretoria, South, was not in his place, but he hoped that the Minister would give instructions to the Administrator to be watchful in election matters. During the Pretoria, South, election the schoolmaster at one of the schools set the children of the school to write out the printed envelopes for the election address, he believed, of the hon. member for Pretoria, South. (Laughter.) He thought it should be pointed out to this gentleman that this practice was very undesirable, and must not be repeated. He was told by the same informant that, not content with this, the same teacher, who was principal of one of the schools, gave his pupils a lesson on the iniquities of the Labour Party. (Laughter.) He would suggest to the Minister that he might exercise some authority and tell the Provincial Administration that these schools, etc., were not to be used as committee rooms for partisan purposes in elections.

said that, in regard to the point raised by the right hon. gentleman, he understood that this official was an official of the Government, appointed by the Government, and that his salary (£2,500) was paid by this House. He would like to ask the Minister if the Government had seen a certain draft Ordinance which it was proposed to introduce into the Cape Provincial Council? He thought if they had seen it they ought to have taken action to save this official from the ridicule which was poured on his head from all over the Province, and from the indignation with which everybody who had read the Bill was filled. It was difficult for him to speak calmly of this matter. How the Government ever allowed a thing of this kind to get into cold print he did not understand.

What is it?

said he was referring to an Ordinance to licence the promoters of public entertainments in this Province. It was by an official of that House. He had a perfect right to bring it forward, and he had the more right to do so because it was a serious interference with the rights of every citizen in this Province. He was certain that the Government had not read the Ordinance, or they would not have allowed it to go forward. He was not going to talk about the tax, because he attached more importance to the liberty of the subject than he did to the tax, unjust as that was. This Ordinance proposed that, if he wanted to give an address or a lecture, or if any of his friends wanted to give a concert, hold a side show at a bazaar, a dance, even, or a football match, or anything in the form of amusement, he must, under clause 2, go and ask some official for permission, and if he elected to hold any of these functions without getting the permission of that official, he had to pay a fine of not less than £50, or three months’ hard labour. (Laughter.) Further, this official need not grant permission by any manner of means. If a friend of his wanted to give a lecture for charity, and so forth, and he did not select a proper hall, or a hall that suited this official, this official could refuse him. If the event was not of a sufficiently high moral character to suit the official, it could not be held.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask your ruling whether the hon. member is in order in discussing a proposed Ordinance in the Provincial Council? It seems to me—

Don’t argue.

It seems to me to belong to the province of the Provincial Council. (Interruption.)

said that they were voting an amount of £2,000,000 for provincial administration, and it was entirely in the members’ own discretion to raise any point connected with that.

said he would not do this in the ordinary way of things; but, as he had said, he looked upon it as a grave assault on the liberties of the citizens of this Province. Furthermore, if a man happened to be not well-to-do, and it was doubtful as to whether he would be in a position to pay the tax levied, this official might require him, before he gave his permission, to pay a deposit of the amount that might be due. He would go a step further. Suppose a man had got the licence, then he had to prepare an account showing his receipts, etc. He need not worry about his expenses. He had got to file this account with a sworn affidavit. A man might have made a loss, but the expense was not taken into account at all, and he had got to pay 10 per cent. on his gross receipts, whether he had made any loss or profit. He might mention the case of a gentleman who recently came out to this country to give high-class concerts. That man made a loss of between £400 and £500. If this Bill had been in operation, he would have had to pay 10 per cent. upon his gross receipts, and would thus have increased his loss. The Administrator had followed the rather bad example of the Government in regard to other matters. He proposed to make regulations under this precious Ordinance, and it was rather interesting and amusing to read what those regulations were. In the first place, he might prescribe the days and hours upon which entertainments were given. This official was already the public censor of this Province, under the law he passed last session. He took upon himself the power to say whether a bioscope might give this entertainment or that, or show this picture or that. Now he said he was going to take power to state when they should give an entertainment, and when they should not.

The Administrator might say, “You have to keep your show open from 6.30 to 9.30” He might even say, “I will not allow matinees on Saturday afternoons, for then people should go into the country and get fresh air.” (Laughter.) Again, the number of free tickets to be issued was subject to the decision of an official. (Laughter.) Policemen might go to the entertainments, and, he supposed, get a free show. (Laughter.) And they could also examine the books. But let them be serious on this matter. A more preposterous—and he said it advisedly—measure was never introduced. (Hear, hear.) The only analogy he could find was in Spain, where in the eighteenth century five per cent. of the gross takings of traders were taken by the State. But it was incredible that an official appointed by the Union Government should introduce a thing of this kind in the twentieth century. If the proposal had been introduced by the chiefs of police of St. Petersburg or Moscow he could have understood it, for in Russia people were accustomed to be under the domination of officials. But for English and Dutch in South Africa— people accustomed to freedom—to be dominated by officials in this way was beyond all reason. He wished to know whether the Government had really considered the matter, whether it was submitted to it for its approval, and, should the Ordinance be passed, would the Government give it its consent? It was not only the tax, but the gross interference with private liberty, that he objected to. (Cheers.)

said that as they could not discuss the Governor-General, he did not know that the House could discuss the Administrator. (Laughter.) Hon. members laughed, but who presented papers to this House? The Governor-General, and the papers presented to the Provincial Council were endorsed “By command of His Honour the Administrator.” The hon. member for Cape Town must be very careful—if he were not guilty of high treason he was very near it. (Laughter.) That was really the reason the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had entered his protest, because in the eyes of the Minister there was nothing to choose between the Administrator and the Governor-General.

Continuing, Mr. Currey said in the Budget speech of the Cape Provincial Council the Administrator proposed to introduce additional taxation to the amount of £75,000. Already the people of the Cape Province paid £500,000 a year in local taxation, and there was not a similar form of taxation in the other Provinces. Of the £75,000 to be raised by additional taxation, £25,000 was to be a surplus, or 33 per cent. of the new taxation. He did not suppose, in the whole history of the civilised world, that anyone responsible for taxation measures ever proposed to tax people to bring in a surplus. (Cheers.) He did not believe folly and stupidity could go further than to tax people in order to produce a surplus. If anybody did that in the Union Parliament he would be laughed out of public life. (Cheers.) There was no necessity for this fresh taxation. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if a promise had not been made to certain members of this House that the tax of one-eighth of a penny in the £ for education would be taken off the Financial Relations Bill would never have become law in its present form. (Cheers.) That promise had been thrown to the winds. He was certain, continued Mr. Currey, that the estimated receipts from transfer duties in the Cape of £120,000 was an absurdly low one. It had been estimated that when the transfer duty stood at four per cent. it would bring in £240,000, but by reducing the duty by one half, £150,000 or £160,000 would be obtained, more particularly as it has been known for a long time that the tax was to be reduced, and consequently heaps of transfers had been held over in order that people might reap the advantage of the reduced duty. Then the Cape Provincial Council proposed to take off taxation to the extent of £7,000 in respect of reduced sporting licences, in face of the protest of the Western Province sportsmen. Could not the Minister of Finance see his way to relieve the people of the Cape from the further burden it was proposed to place on them?

said they had had a discussion on the deeds and misdeeds of the Administrator of the Cape, but he ventured to think that the House was not putting itself in a very edifying position—(Ministerial cheers)—and it could not do any good by reviewing every action of Provincial Councils. After all, the Administrator was an official of the Union, but the Amusements Ordinance was nothing more than a Draft Ordinance, and if it ever became law it would be the law not of the Administrator, but of the Provincial Council. (Ministerial cheers.) People said that the world stood still, but the right hon. member for Victoria West, who a few years ago had referred to motor cars as abominations, was now protesting against the proposal to limit their speed. (Laughter.) Today a motor cycle was “an abominable machine” to the right hon. member, but he (Mr. Duncan) was not sure that next session the right hon. member’s indignation might not be equally stirred by efforts which might be made to regulate its speed. (Laughter.)

He did not think it was well to interfere with Provincial Councils in what they legitimately did or to criticise also the financial arrangement, so long as they kept within the four corners of their privileges. It was open to every citizen who felt he had a grievance, to challenge the legality of the tax in a court of law. He thought the hon. member would do better to keep his indignation for the meeting which he saw was called for to-night in Trafalgar-square. (Laughter.) He thought they ought to be careful, in passing any reflection upon the Administrator, not to bring the whole of the system of the Provincial Council into contempt. That system was now on its trial, and it ought to have a fair chance. He did not think it was wise for the House to review constantly the proceedings of the Provincial Council. Proceeding, the hon. member said he would like to draw the Minister’s attention to another point. That was whether it would not be wise to make these Provincial Councils pay for the services rendered to them

said that what he wanted to do was to ask the Minister to take into consideration the legality of this proposed tax, whether it did not come under the head of “indirect taxation.” He had objected strongly to the passing of licences over to Provincial Councils. It seemed to him that this was indirect taxation. Surely, however, in this proposed tax they were going a step further. It was admitted upon all hands that people who were catering for entertainments could not pay this tax of 10 per cent, and make a profit, and the theory was that they would increase their charges in order to meet this obligation. Surely this was nothing else but indirect taxation? He would commend this seriously to the Minister, and ask him to give the point his attention and see whether it was direct or indirect taxation. It seemed to him that they might just as well raise the revenue on the Customs duties as through this tax.

asked what the object of the discussion was, except to hold the Provincial Councils up to ridicule. They had just passed a Bill under which they professed to allow the Provincial Councils to impose taxes. Let them give these Councils the chance which they professed to wish to give them. They knew that the mining industry did a good deal for the development of the country, yet they taxed them to the tune of 10 per cent. Why, then, should they not tax what, after all, was nothing but an industry —these amusements?

said he had listened to the very lofty and superior remarks of his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg, who never addressed the House except from the standpoint of the superior person. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Duncan) enjoined them not to touch the work of the Provincial Councils, because they were in an experimental stage, and they might ruin them. But it was just because they were in the nature of an experiment that they should criticise what they did, because they could only judge them by the way they were going on. What he wanted to know was, whether the Union officials were going to be used by these Provincial Councils, because, if that was so, the Minister would have to increase the police force, for instance, if their officials were to be used in this way. The Provincial Councils were going on in a way that was not likely to strengthen their hold upon the country. As to the remarks that provincialism had been strengthened—of course it had. The House adopted a measure which strengthened provincialism to a great degree, and, by doing that, it struck one of the most fatal blows to Union that could ever be struck. (Hear, hear.)

said he could not agree with the members for Fordsburg and Fauresmith, and argued that, when passing the Financial Relations Bill, they never thought they were going to agree to the imposition of further taxation. He said that motor-cars were to be taxed as well. If he had known all that before he would never have voted for that Bill; and he thought that if that was going to be the effect of the Bill, and the effect of the Provincial Councils, it would be best to do away with the Provincial Councils as soon as possible. In the Cape, people were quite satisfied with the Divisional Councils, and he thought that other Provinces might do well by seeing how Divisional Councils would suit them.

while not wishing to interfere with the Provincial Council’s said the whole country was protesting against the measure. The Act said that any Ordinance must have the assent of the Governor-General-in-Council. The Administrator was an official of the Government who was appointed by the Government. They had the extraordinary position that an official of the Government put forward before the Provincial Council what the Government itself might disapprove of. He thought the Government should be consulted before such a matter was put before the Provincial Council. He did not agree with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, as to the official himself. The Administrator was a hard working and capable official, although his judgment might be at fault. If that proposed Ordinance was allowed they might have a similar one in the Free State.

We should not pass that in the Free State.

in conclusion, said he was not sure that that matter of taxing places of amusement was left to the Provincial Council.

I believe that is so

said he wanted to point out in the first place that he did not want a billet on the Provincial Council. No doubt the Administrator was a dictator, and did exactly what he liked, and he (Mr. Madeley) quite agreed with every word of the indictment brought forward by the hon. member for George in that respect. But the hon. member was too late, His Mightiness had spoken, and although that draft Ordinance had not become law, it was as good as being on the Statute book. Whether the Provincial Council liked it or not the Administrator had said it had got to be. He (Mr. Madeley) urged that that House had the right to criticise any such action as that, and hon. members of the House had the right to prevent any Provincial Council making itself ridiculous. To allow the Administrator to tax amusements to the extent of 10 per cent. on the gross takings meant absolutely killing most of the places of amusement that already existed. It appeared to him to strike at the whole Union. Every hon. member should be concerned in elevating the public taste. If the Cape of Good Hope passed such an Ordinance as that, and put it on the Statute book, good companies and better sort of musicians, who as a rule included Cape Colony in their itinerary would not come, and consequently the whole Union would suffer.

Whatever some hon. members might think of the bioscope entertainment he thought it could be made an educative force; moreover they were cheap, and a poor man could take his wife and children to them, but if the 10 per cent. tax were imposed they were going to kill the bioscopes. As a matter of fact they were going to kill almost every sort of amusement, not only in the Cape but all over the Union. The movement would spread, and he, along with other members, wanted it to be nipped in the bud. He was glad that there had been that discussion, for it would strengthen the hands of those in the Provincial Council who were opposed to the measure.

raised the question whether Provincial Councils were not going beyond their powers under the South Africa Act. He thought that every member of the House had a duty conferred upon him of seeing that the rights of the people whom he represented were not being infringed upon by the Provincial Councils. He urged that the House could very well protest against that taxation because the rights of the people whom they represented were being infringed, and they should ask the hon. Minister whether they had relegated that matter to the Provincial Council as being a purely local matter to be dealt with by the Provincial Councils. He contended that it was not a purely local matter because it might extend to other Provinces. The protest which had been made throughout the country showed that it was a most uncalled for matter and one which was generally objected to. He had received a telegram from Graham’s Town asking him as their member to protect their rights. They objected there to the curtailment of their rights as citizens. It was not merely a matter of taxation. In his opinion it was not a matter to be relegated to the Provincial Council, and it was not a matter they should confirm.

said he did not agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg in the view he had taken up. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had said, it was all very well for people who did not live in the Cape Province and did not represent people in that Province to say they were throwing discredit on the Provincial Council. He regarded the discussion as being most opportunely raised by the hon. member for Victoria West. When the official read the opinion of those who paid his salary he would realise that he had gone too far He would realise that when a frog blew himself out in an endeavour to be as big as the bullock he was bound to come to an unfortunate end. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Long) would like to enter his protest as representing a constituency in this Province and more particularly as representing a constituency in the Peninsula, which would be largely affected. He hoped the discussion would make the hon. members of the Provincial Council see that they should not give way entirely to the will of a man who had attempted to make himself an autocrat over what should be a representative body.

Interrupted.

The hon. member comes from Durban, where they have their Administrator properly under control, and they don’t have these troubles. (Laughter.) The question was whether the proposed tax was direct taxation, and therefore within the competence of the Provincial Council, or whether it was an indirect taxation, and therefore not within their competence. No doubt the Minister of Finance had considered this question, and he thought that he should have got up and told them whether this was direct taxation or indirect taxation, and whether the Government would be justified in vetoing the Bill.

rose to a point of order.

The hon. member is quite in order.

My hon. friend, by his attitude, might be a personal friend of the Administrator. (Laughter.) Continuing, he pointed out that this position of the South Africa Act, which assigned direct taxation to the Provincial Council was taken from various other constitutions, particularly from the Constitution of Canada. In Canada it had led to many conflicts between the Provincial Government and the Dominion Parliament. The definition of the difference between direct and indirect taxation as given by John Stuart Mill was approved of by the High Court in a very famous case. He ventured to submit that the Minister should regard this taxation as not direct taxation, but indirect taxation, because it was clear that the intention was that those who would pay would be compelled to pay out of the pocket of other people, and not directly from their own pocket. The Administrator had admitted that point. He had practically said that these people would not pay the tax; that they would get it from the pockets of their customers. He inferred from that that the Administrator had admitted that this was indirect taxation, and therefore that this legislation was not within the competence of the Provincial Council. He hoped the Minister would be able to say if that were so in order that he might give a warning in time to the Provincial Council, which would prevent the passage of this Bill and save a conflict of authority between the Central Government and the Provincial Council of the Cape, which would be an undesirable thing.

said he associated himself with the view expressed by the hon. member for Fordsburg, though he might say if the law advisers of the Government had come to the conclusion that this was indirect taxation, steps should have been taken to put an end to it before now. Although the Provincial Council was an inferior and subordinate body it had its rights under the Constitution and the Act of Union, and they should be very careful, as the superior body, in invalidating those rights or interfering with those rights. Surely they could leave it to the Provincial Council to decide. The Act of Union provided for the vetoing of an Act which was not in conformity with its provisions, and he thought they might well leave it at that. Did they forget that the members of the Provincial Council represented the Cape Province—the same constituents who elected the Cape members of that House? Could they not leave it to these representatives to decide a thing which the Government had the power to veto? If they sought to interfere with the legislation of the Provincial Council—

We don’t.

Why the hon. member for Liesbeek hoped that the remarks made here would have an influence on the voting of the members of the Provincial Council. Continuing, he said that he thought the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was quite right in asking whether this discussion was in order. A certain amount of criticism of the Provincial Council was legitimate, but when they discussed these minutiæ of Bills before the other House, then he thought they were going too far. He could quite understand the attitude of the right hon. member for Victoria West, because his speech on the Financial Relations Bill showed that he wished to destroy the Provincial Council system.

said that the remarks of the last speaker showed the difficulty of the Union Parliament with regard to anything done by the Provincial Council which was beyond its power. That hon. member admitted that a certain amount of criticism was fair. How far that criticism was to go he did not say. When it came to a question of the minutiae of Bills he said that this House exceeded its power. It just showed the difficulties of the position. He would point out that this tax—he would not repeat what other hon. members had said with regard to its absurdity—was not merely a local matter. All the better class of entertainments came from across the water, and under this tax it would be impossible for any decent entertainer to eke out an existence in the three Provinces without the assistance of the Cape Province.

If any tax of this sort were imposed on the Cape Province, many entertainers would not come to these shores at all. No opera companies could come to South Africa without going to the Cape Province. Now came important points. If this absurd tax was in conflict with the Constitution, what was the remedy? If it was in conflict, it was an infringement of the rights of that Assembly, and that Assembly had to safeguard its own rights with regard to matters on which it could legislate. He did not see how anybody could object to that House criticising any measure of the Provincial Council on the ground that it was a measure that was not within the powers of the Provincial Council. Of course, it might be said: what would it lead to? As far as the Government was concerned, it would take the advice of its law officers. But that would not settle the matter, because eventually the matter might still be thrashed out in the courts. This was no new thing. The same position would arise if they were considering a breach of the Constitution in regard to that House itself. In Canada and Australia the same difficulties were encountered, and in Canada the Dominion Parliament got over the difficulty by passing an Act by which they could take the opinion of the judges. He would suggest to the Minister that, as the matter had reached this stage, he should take into consideration the question of solving these difficulties. If any question arose as to a conflict of power of legislation between that House and the Provincial Council, it would be a very unfair thing to allow that legislation to go to its completion, allow the tax to be inflicted, and then throw the burden on any particular individual to stand the cost of a lawsuit.

said he thought it was only right that those of them who were not representatives of Cape constituencies should have some say in this matter. He thought that most of the discussion that had taken place had been most undignified and out of place. They were right in discussing the action of the Administrator, but all this talk about a proposed Ordinance which might never be considered and discussed at all, was decidedly going out of their way. (Hear, hear.) They were all agreed that the proposed Ordinance was so absurd that they could not believe any self-respecting body of Provincial Councillors in the Cape would agree to it for one moment. He thought the Administrator was going too far altogether, but he maintained that it was not the business of this Assembly to criticise measures which it was proposed to bring before the Provincial Council.

said he could not help feeling that this was a most regrettable discussion, and the tone of most of the speeches which had been made had been even more regrettable. He had seldom seen the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, display so much feeling as he had done in his speech that afternoon. He thought it was quite a question whether these measures, which were now subjudice and were really under discussion before another legislative body—it was a question whether the discussion of them was in good taste and good form, and whether it was biassed. (Hear, hear.) The matter started in the form of what had been called “an indictment” of the Administrator of the Cape. Hon. members must bear in mind that any Ordinance which finally emerged was not the work of the Administrator, but of a legislative body in this Province; and when any Ordinance finally came before the Governor-General for approval, it would then be the time for that body to consider it, and surely they were not sitting there in advance to pass judgment on the work of that body. (Ministerial cheers.) Many hon. members seemed to be under an entirely wrong impression as to the constitutional procedure and the procedure followed in regard to Ordinances which had finally to be approved by the Governor-General-in-Council. Some hon. members, including even the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, seemed to be of the impression that at some early stage the Government should be consulted in advance. The Government would certainly not agree to be consulted in advance. The Government were not going to pass their judgment first and have their work revised afterwards by the Provincial Council. The Constitution laid down an entirely different procedure and this procedure would be followed here. They were following, with regard to Provincial Councils, the same procedure as had been followed in Canada for many years past. They waited until the Ordinance emerged in final form, until the Provincial Council had pronounced upon it its final form. At that stage the law officers were consulted as to whether the Ordinance conformed to the provisions of the South Africa Act, and if they advised the Governor-General that the provisions did not conform in point of law to the South Africa Act that was in itself sufficient to advise the Governor-General to veto the Ordinance. Therefore, whether this was direct taxation or indirect taxation, whether this taxation did or did not fall under the terms of section 85 of the Constitution, did not arise at all at the present stage so far as the Government were concerned. They did not know in what form that tax would ultimately emerge from the Provincial Council. If it did emerge, they would have to consult competent law officers as to whether it was direct taxation and within the competence of the Provincial Council.

What he thought most deplorable was the fact that this matter was being discussed here while this point was being considered in another place by the Provincial Council. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with most of what had fallen from the hon. member for Fordsburg. He thought they had started a novel experiment by creating these Provincial Councils and they should give this body a fair chance. (Hear, hear.) He was sure they were not giving that body a fair chance when, while they were at this moment discussing these Bills, they should appear in that House to pass judgment on those Bills. What he was afraid was that the effect of the discussion here would be just the opposite to what was intended. One point of importance had been raised by his right hon. friend, and that was the form in which these Provincial bodies called for the services of Government officers. Of course, the matter was dealt with in a section of the Financial Relations Bill. There it was provided that the Government officers would continue to perform gratis such services for the Provincial Council as the Government might decide. So far most of the services which Government officials, officers of the public service, rendered for the Provincial Administration had been rendered free. Some services were being paid for. It was possible for the Government at any time to step in and say “We shall continue to perform these services for you and you shall pay for them.” Of course, it would be a very serious question for the Government to consider whether at a certain stage they should not do that. It might be that, if they did step in, it would be more expensive to call on the Provincial Council to pay than to pay for these services themselves. The hon. member for Jeppe had referred to another matter, less exciting, but, from his point of view, no doubt, of importance, too. The result of the election in Pretoria, South, was so disappointing to his hon. friend that he could well understand that he would want to find some explanation of that crushing defeat.

Not at all.

said he did not know whether the facts were as stated by the hon. member, but, even if they were, his hon. friend knew that in these times it was generally recognised that the duties of citizenship should be included in the curriculum of schools. (Laughter.) It was quite possible that the teacher might have been under the impression that he was teaching the children the duties of citizenship. (Renewed laughter.) He quite agreed that there should be no party bias in these matters, and, after the great publicity that the hon. member had given to the matter in that House, no doubt the Education Department of the Transvaal would tremble. (Laughter.)

said that there was, in connection with Provincial Council matters at the present time, a matter which might be of very much more importance than the question of a tax on amusements. He referred to a certain policy which it was proposed to introduce in connection with our educational system. It might be perfectly correct for the Provincial Council to legislate on that particular matter, but the point he understood to be laid down in the South Africa Act was that the Minister of the Crown in the Union had a perfectly legitimate right to consider and reconsider legislation made by the Provincial Council. It must surely be considered that the proposed departure in connection with our educational arrangements of the Provincial Council was a new one. The matter was certainly not before the electors on a recent occasion, and he denied that the Provincial Council had any mandate from the constituencies to introduce such a sweeping alteration in our educational system as was now proposed in that Ordinance. It was not a question so much of law as of policy, and he would ask the Minister to consider whether some way or another could not be devised whereby that Ordinace, if it were passed at all, could be prevented from what he called doing harm to the educational institutions of this particular Province. Queenstown was not in favour of that Ordinance. If the Ordinance were passed into law, could not the Government postpone its legislation until the whole administration of educational matters reverted to the Union?

said the Minister of Finance had been lecturing them on the form they had shown and their good or bad taste, but he had not touched on the points which had been raised, skating over them in the most lamentably weak manner. (Laughter.) As to the responsibility of that Government for the acts of its officials, the Administrator was an official of the Union Government, and rather than the Government should wait until the Provincial Council had spent days, and perhaps weeks, discussing the matter, the Government should make its views known on the subject at once. The sensible course would be for the Government to allow its officer to know before it introduced an Ordinance, the lines on which it would allow him to go. There was no use quoting parallel cases, because our Provincial Councils were original bodies. The Provincial Governors in Canada were not officials of the Dominion Government.

Yes, they are.

said he was very glad indeed that the discussion had taken place—(hear, hear)—and that the Administrator should know that the members of this House, representing as they did constituencies in various parts of the country, had found it imperative to bring to the attention of Parliament the grave discontent that existed throughout the Cape Province with regard to these proposals. (Cheers.)

said he did not agree with the hon. member as to the position of the Administrator. He (Mr. Fremantle) did not see that the Administrator was any more an official of the Union Government than a Lieutenant-Governor in Canada. They were striking at the whole root of the Provincial system by discussing these matters here. He was very glad the Minister had taken up the attitude that the right time for the Ministry to go into the matter was after the Ordinance was passed. He (Mr. Fremantle) hoped the Amusements Ordinance would not be passed.

On the religious education question, he was sorry to have to disagree with the hon. member for Queen’s Town. The Administrator the other day mentioned his name, and rather appealed to him (Mr. Fremantle) to show that the matter was brought forward, to a certain extent, on the recommendation of a Commission of which he (Mr. Fremantle) was the chairman. But it was entirely improper for the House to discuss this matter at all. As to the general principle of the Religious Education Ordinance, it was in accordance with the recommendations of the late Educational Commission, of which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and himself were members. In view of the fact that the recommendation of the Commission was a unanimous one and represented the views of a very large share of the public, it would be most improper for Parliament to interfere. On this point he hoped the Provincial Council would legislate. As long as the Ordinance provided a conscience clause, he thought there was no case for intervention, without grave cause. If the Union Government were going to impose its own views on the Provincial Council, why should we continue them at all? When such a very large measure of agreement had been arrived at, representing 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the European people—

No.

If the hon. member will read the census figures he will see that, as usual, I have understated my case. The matter has been agreed to by a number of churches representing about 80 per cent. or 90 per cent.

What has that to do with it?

said that under these ourcumstances for Parliament to interfere was going entirely outside its province. No good could possibly come of interfering with a fair prerogative of the Provincial Council in this matter. He hoped the Provincial Council would be allowed to do what it had a perfect right to do, and that was to legislate in an important matter that had been left under its control.

said he thoroughly agreed with the hon. member for Springs that the Amusements Tax would affect other. Provinces as well as the Cape. The Administrator—a little Czar—was alone responsible for this extraordinary proposal. As to the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage, he was surprised that a gentleman of his accomplishments and educational attainments could advocate religious teaching in schools. Religious teaching in schools had caused passionate controversies in Great Britain and other countries. Leaving aside the parents’ point of view, and whether religious instruction was going to be beneficial or otherwise to children, what was to be the position of the latter? There were 378 schools in the Cape without teachers. Did the committee think it would be easier to fill these vacancies when religious tests were imposed? (Cheers.) Nearly all these vacancies were in farm schools, and in filling them it must of necessity occur that the local committees would enquire what the religious opinions were of the various applicants. (Hear hear.) And quite wrongly so. Children should be taught the truth—(hear, hear)—not what some people thought was the truth—not what a certain collection of favoured individuals drew up as the truth. Let children be taught the truth that could be demonstrated as such, and religious dogmas should be left to the pastors and the parents. The State had no right to interfere in this matter.

With regard to the statement that they should not criticise the Provincial Councils —well, he had a recollection of what was done last year on the same vote. He believed he drew attention to the vote that in the Transvaal a most obnoxious Bill was printed and put before the Provincial Council. He wanted to point out again that the Administrator in the Transvaal was also a Civil Servant, appointed by a Government backed by a docile steamroller. In the Transvaal they sought to take away the rights of the citizens in Pretoria and Johannesburg—most important rights. There was first the proposal to take away the system of proportional representation, which was found to be eminently satisfactory to most people, although some people might have had an opposite opinion. (Hear, hear.) The Administrator took upon himself the obligation to abolish this proportional representation, and also the right of a man to be elected to the Town Council, unless he had a certain amount of property. He (the hon. member) contended that this body was not elected to do anything of this nature. The Bill was passed, and had now become law, and what was the good now of criticising it? The Administrator still remained there—a kind of Czar and dictator to the people. That was why he objected to the statement that they should not criticise the Bill before it was passed.

said they had every right to discuss before hand the proposed Ordinance. They could not prevent the Provincial Council passing the Ordinance, but if the Government refused to veto it, they had the right to discuss it in every minute detail. They were entitled to discuss any Ordinance that had been passed, and they were entitled to make a law creating an inconsistency, so that the Provincial Council measure could go by the board. The Administrator was in the position of a highly-paid Civil Servant. In the Cape Province he took most drastic powers to stop any entertainment throughout the length and breadth of the land which he thought improper. He (the hon. member) could not find any power for that in the Act of Union. That Ordinance was duly assented to, and it became law—a most drastic law indeed. If they were asked not to discuss these things beforehand here, then he did not know what was the power of the Union Parliament. The Union Parliament had the power to override any Ordinance, and that was stated clearly in the Act of Union. Such being the case, if they were not allowed to discuss proposals of the Administrator, any public meeting might be called interference with him in that respect. He hoped that the opinion would be strong enough to show that this proposed tax of 10 per cent. would only have the effect of killing entertainments. It was said that the tax might have to be adopted, because it fell mainly upon one section of the population. That might be true, because it fell mainly upon the towns. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the difference with regard to the schooling of children in the Cape and Transvaal. He instanced the case where a well-to-do man, member of the local School Board, sent his boy from the Cape to the Transvaal, where he could get his schooling free, his books free, and where he was boarded and lodged free. If the School Boards in the Transvaal could give these facilities, he thought that such generosity called for some inquiry.

said that, if the tax on amusements was imposed, they would have no amusements at all.

said he did not know whether the concentration of the discussion was due to the fact that they were sitting in Cape Town or to the action of the gentleman who had given the lead in this legislation or in this proposed legislation, but he thought it was a great pity that they should discuss in detail these matters. (Hear, hear.) He thought that there was no harm in discussing what was the responsibility of the Government in regard to the action of the Administrator, but there the question might have dropped. (Hear, hear.) Every member representing a constituency in the Cape Province had a colleague in the other place, and the fact of hon. members discussing this question would simply have the effect of their colleague in the other place being put in a difficult position. (Hear, hear.) Possibly the speeches which had been made would have given the necessary warning, if a warning was necessary. But he could not help speaking, as a member of the Convention, where they really did decide to keep these things separately. They wanted to give the Provincial Councils a chance, well, let them give them a chance now. (Hear, hear.) What he wanted to get at was this. The administrators had a dual capacity. In the first place, they were responsible officials, and, in the second, they stood at the head of the Provincial Administrations. They had dual capacities. They, unfortunately, also had the power of calling into action the political majority which served the Government of the party. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) That was the fact to which he wished to draw attention; and then as regarded the other question in how far was the Government responsible for the undertakings of the Administrator. He held that, after all, there was no doubt that the Administrator had behind him a party majority, and that he would not introduce such a serious principle as, say, religious instruction in the schools without the sanction of the Government. (Cries of dissent.) Sir Percy concluded by saying if that discussion should prove a sufficient warning to those who had been indiscreet and induce them to leave it alone, it would do good, but he hoped they would not have any further debate on this matter.

said one might recognise that that Parliament had a right to criticise the action of Administrators, but before the Provincial Council had expressed itself to anticipate by discussion in that House a matter that was now before the Council, he did not think was fair. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought such a discussion could easily be avoided in future by not having the sittings of the Provincial Council simultaneously with those of that Parliament.

said the intention was to appoint an official as Administrator. As a matter of fact when the gentleman who represented the Cape wanted to get anything through he called the party machine into operation, and matters were not discussed as it was intended that they should be discussed, purely on their merits, apart from any party consideration at all. When the Administrator of the Cape wanted to get anything through, not only did he use his persuasive powers, which were admitted to be very great, but he had also the party machinery at his back. Had an official only been appointed, a man out of touch altogether with party, they would not have had that discussion. He considered when the rights of any citizens were being infringed it was the duty of hon. members to bring it to light, whatever it might be.

largely agreed with the Minister that they should not discuss matters which the Provincial Council had before them, hut the clause in the Constitution which reserved to the Cabinet the right of sanctioning Ordinances of Provincial Councils must not be a dead letter. (Hear, hear.) He had raised that question last year, a question of a most important constitutional principle, that such a body as a Provincial Council should not be allowed to take away by Ordinance the rights of those who appointed it without the matter being referred to the electorate. Provincial Council Ordinances were subject to review by the Minister, as a matter of constitutional principle when a subordinate body such as that passed an Ordinance which proposed to take away citizens rights, a proposal never dreamed of at the time the Provincial Council was elected, it was the duty of the Government to give some pledge that such an Ordinance would be referred back to the electorate before it was placed on the Statute book. He was glad to see by the discussion that the attitude of apathy displayed last year when he brought it up had changed to one of recognition by the committee. If the Minister last year had allowed a discussion on this question of principle, he (Mr. Creswell) thought he would have done a great service to himself now.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 33, Miscellaneous Services, £94,322,

said it was quite impossible for him to deal adequately with a matter which he wished to raise, before 6 o’clock. He wanted to raise the question of the rating of Government property, and the only other head on which he could raise it was under “Public Works.” If he could he would bring the matter forward under that.

You can do that

raised a question on the item “Expenses of Commissions,” £9,000. He hoped that the Minister would during the recess take consideration of the report of the Leasehold Township Commission, and he said that in some cases large sums had been paid for extension of leases, whereas in others, people had been let off lightly.

asked whether the townships question could be discussed on the Mines Vote.

replied in the affirmative.

said he wanted to ask for some information on various matters under that head. They could not get the vote through before 6 o’clock.

said he wanted to know what had been done by the Assaults on Women Commission; they understood some months ago that the Commission had reported. Then there was the Sunday Observance Commission. They had not had their report.

Business was suspended at 6 o’clock.

explained that the report of the Black Peril Commission was received only 14 days ago. The evidence was very voluminous. As soon as the report was printed it would be laid on the Table. As far as the Government was concerned, there had been no delay in the matter.

asked for information with reference to the Sunday Observance Commission’s report.

said the Sunday Observance Commission was considering its report at the present moment and it would not be ready in time for the House to take any practical steps on it this session.

hoped the Minister would intimate to the Sunday Observance Commission that it was time the report was presented. Referring to the Leasehold Townships Commission, Mr. Creswell wished to know whether the Minister had drawn the attention of the Transvaal Administrator to the report of which the first two recommendations concerned the Transvaal Provincial Council. A number of other recommendations required legislation by the Union Parliament. They were wasting money if Commissions were appointed and their reports were pigeon-holed. They did not want Commissions to legislate for them, neither did they want Commissions appointed —as they frequently were—as a means of shelving a subject. The conclusion was irresistible that Government appointed a Commission in the hope that by the time it reported, public interest in the matter would have died away, but that was not so in his constituency with regard to the Commission under notice. He frequently received communications from his constituents asking him to ventilate the subject. If the matter was serious enough to justify the appointment of a Commission then it was serious enough to justify action being taken by the Government. Something ought to be done to relieve the situation caused by these township companies.

referred to the brandy advances, and suggested the Government should be released from the anomolous position of being brandy merchants.

drew attention to the item “Allowances to chaplains, Cape of Good Hope, £1,528,” and “Grants to Free State churches,

£6,061.” The hon. member asked what particular functions the chaplains performed. These grants savoured of State-aided churches. He considered the principle was wrong. Wherever this principle was involved it had not operated to the benefit of the churches. If churches were to perform their work and if people considered that they were performing useful work, then people would support them, but there was no need to take money from people and hand it over to the churches. (Hear, hear.)

desired to know what steps were being taken to dispose of the stock of brandy. Had the Government quickened up their pace at all by which this brandy was being disposed of. He knew that the Government was very sensitive in regard to this matter. (Laughter.) It was to the interests of the Government, it seemed to him, to get rid of the brandy as soon as they could. Another point that he wished to refer to was that as a result of the Freehold and Leasehold Townships Commission, had the Government decided to undertake some legislation, or did they intend to abandon the policy pursued in the Transvaal.

said that the sale of the brandy was proceeding apace. Last year they sold £8,000 of this brandy, and this year they had sold £5,000. In the meantime what was not sold he hoped would improve in quality. (Laughter.) With regard to the Leasehold Townships Commission Report, he did not think that the Government had considered what line of policy it would adopt with regard to that report. It was novel for South Africa, although not for Australia. It would have to be considered, but so far no settled policy had been adopted. With regard to the grants to churches, which seemed to have perturbed the mind of the hon. member for Georgetown, these grants were made in pre-Union days. The Government had adopted a policy of reducing these grants by 10 per cent. per annum, and in a few years these would disappear. With regard to the question put by the hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir D. Hunter) regarding the expenses connected with the brandy, these would also disappear, but they had to pay the expenses of the Board.

was understood to ask the Minister what quantity of brandy had been taken over from the Distillers’ Association?

said the Minister did not answer his hon. friend the member for Georgetown satisfactorily with regard to the chaplains. It seemed to him that these appointments looked like permanencies.

They will disappear.

said that before he sat down he would like to draw the Minister’s attention to this vote for £22,200, Cape Town—Durban Mail Boat Service. This amount would be paid to the Union-Castle Co., which had the coal traffic business of Natal by the throat. They were making consumers in this country pay actually more than in London for the coal. Art these Natal collieries if any particular individual, firm or corporation, however big, came to anyone of them and asked for coal, they were met with the question—“where is the coal for?” If it was to be delivered within the Union of South Africa delivery was refused. He asked the Government if they were going to acquiesce in such a condition of affairs. When they concluded the agreement with the Union-Castle Co. they did not know that this state of affairs existed, but now that they did know he would like to know what they intended to do.

asked the Minister when the Government intended to deal regarding the tariff report. Industries were at a standstill, because they did not know what was going to happen within the next twelve months. He understood that they were going to have some definite statement as to the Government’s tariff policy, and he would like to know for the benefit of these industries if it was the intention to deal with this matter next session. If it was the intention of the Government to do so, then it was only fair that the Minister should make a definite statement.

said he hoped there would be an opportunity next year of dealing with this very valuable report. With regard to this coal business, he did not know at present what steps the Government proposed should be taken. There had been ample discussion upon this matter several times during the session, and he could assure his hon. friend that he would get no further information out of him that night. With regard to the query concerning the chaplains, these chaplains belonged to pre-Union days, and they would also disappear in time.

said he wanted to call attention to the very unsatisfactory answer the Minister had given. He hoped that other members would impress upon the Minister the desirability of giving satisfactory answers. In the Post Office Act it was forbidden the Government to contract with any combine, and seeing that this was a combine, he wanted to know why the terms of the Act were set aside. They wanted some assurance that steps would be taken to obviate this state of affairs. He hoped the Minister as soon as possible would tell them what he intended to do.

The vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.

moved: That the clauses of the Bill stand over until after the schedules have been disposed of.

The motion was agreed to.

On schedule 1, in reference to the Carnarvon to Zak River line,

further moved that the items be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On item No. 1,

said that this was the most faulty line to adopt. They were going to do away by that line with the means of opening up a large portion of the country. It was being done on the most flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all. (Hear, hear.) If they had the opportunity of putting the Bill before a Select Committee, and bringing the proper evidence, the weight of evidence would be entirely in favour of the other route. The Railway Board had never given a proper study to the line. He knew that he was out of order in moving an amendment that would mean more money, but at the same time he wished to record his protest against the line, for it would lead to serious damage in the future. The railway would go over a comparatively uninhabited tract of country, and leave without communication a part of the country which was to this part of the world sufficiently inhabited with two villages in the district. They were cutting out those villages, and going over a part of the country which was much less populated. They proposed to make the line straight to the property of one large holder, in order to carry away the grain of that one individual. He did not think that was right. When they were making railways they should make them to develop the country where a considerable number of people were living who were making efforts and spending their money to develop the country. He was sorry his health had not allowed him to be in the House when the hon. Minister made his reply, a few days ago, but judging from the reports in the newspapers, he seemed to have treated the matter in a somewhat light and flippant way, and not in a manner in which a matter like that should be treated. Unless the money was being spent correctly, they were not going to give the railways a chance. That line would be a great misfortune indeed. If time had allowed he would like to have moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, for that was where it should go. The people interested had had no opportunity of knowing the reasons which had influenced the Treasury to spend that two millions of money. They would have to spend that amount without knowing anything of the routes, and those who did know about the routes had no opportunity of making their voices felt.

speaking in support of the hon. member for Victoria West, said that if they took the line to Loxton they would develop the upper reaches of the Zak River. Great developments were taking place in those regions. Those projects were projects for making lines to small villages which were not as important as Fraserburg. They would eventually have to make a line to Fraserburg. The nearest station at present was 14 hours on horseback. He considered that it would make for bigger developments if the alternative route had been taken. Of course, there was the drawback that they had to make that line 62 miles longer, which they would not have to make it if they made it from Carnarvon. The hon. member went on to show that the Minister had extended the line in another part of the country about 50 miles to touch the district of Wakkerstroom, but here they were asking him to go out of his way to serve a district which was more capable of development, along a river course, but he declined to do that because it was going to cost more money. In the other case he had done that without anything near the same inducements, at any rate, so far as he (Mr. Jagger) could judge. They were leaving people who had been working hard and spending their money for many years absolutely in the cold. The upper reaches of the Zak River were being left without any communication at all.

took another view of the matter in supporting the right hon. gentleman. He argued that the line could not be built during the present year. The railway people had authority for the building of far more lines than they could build during the present year. A little further investigation might show that for the same amount of money they were asked for they might build another line, which the right hon. gentleman was agitating for, and it would be of greater benefit to the country and the railway system than the line at present proposed. He hoped they would decide to hold the line over, and in that hope he supported the right hon. gentleman.

was understood to say that, as to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had said, surely they did not want to feed the ports of the country. They wanted a line to the North. One miller had imported over one million bags of wheat, and he thought it was about time that it was realised what an amount of money went out of the country. The Railway Board and different surveyors had been there, and that line had been recommended. He hoped that the Minister would stick to his proposals, and that the hon. member would not press his amendment.

May I point out that I have not moved any amendment at all?

said that he did not think that his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Searle) would accuse him of not being anxious to develop these districts. They had various proposals for railway communication to the North-Western districts from the South and from the East; and he would ask any hon. member of that committee whether it was not a scandal to vote money for railways on such information as was before the committee. Would the Minister of Railways and Harbours tell him, or any person acquainted with that enormous district, that he had laid such information before that Parliament as to let them form their best judgment as to the best route for opening up these districts? The information with regard to that line was laid down in one small paragraph. Was the House in a position to know which of the two directions were best—after Twee Rivers? Whether the route proposed by the right hon. member for Victoria West or the route in the Bill was adopted, Williston was one of the points that line would strike, but as to the line beyond Williston, there was no information before them of any sort, and he said, unhesitatingly, that after the ideas they had formed in the Convention and by the Act of Union, it was nothing short of a scandal for Parliament to vote these sums of money with that information before them. He felt very strongly upon that, because no one more than himself had advocated the opening up of the country by means of building railways. It was not by choosing the shortest route, but by choosing with the greatest judgment a route along an area that was possible of the greatest degree of cultivation, that they were opening up the country. He entirely agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that, if they were going to open up the country between Victoria West and Carnarvon, the route chosen was not the best one. They wanted to strike a productive area as soon as possible, and go along that, but not necessarily along the shortest route. As to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had said about 40,000 tons of wheat—that was by no means all that the district could produce, and should not Fraserburg also have an opportunity to develop? They should come as near the town of Fraserburg as possible. It was not fair, it was not just, and it was not businesslike to ask that committee, on the information which had been placed before it, to vote those sums of money. The information placed before the old Cape Parliament in regard to new lines had been more than was now placed before them; in those days they did not have the Railway Board. It would be far better to move that this amount of money be used for building a railway a short distance from Victoria West, in the direction of Twee Rivers.

What, without any information?

Yes. The Minister is trying to pride himself on the fact that he wants us to vote £600,000 without information. It is nothing to be proud of. Proceeding, he said that, from his knowledge of the country, and from his knowledge of the irrigable possibilities of that country, it would be far better to take a route towards Brandwacht. He thought it was one of the most fatal policies to try and build branch development lines by the shortest possible routes, when, by taking the longer routes, they would develop a far larger tract of country.

said he thought the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the right hon. member for Victoria West, both made a very unfortunate admission when they agreed with the Minister’s statement that this line would only be 60 miles longer than the other. He was told it was absolutely unnecessary to go to Victoria West to get a junction. That fact had not even been looked into by the Railway Board, and he would like to know what was the use of a Railway Board that ignored such a matter? There was a portion of the valley of the Zak River that had never been looked at by the Board. The routes along which motor-cars seemed to travel most conveniently were the routes seemingly travelled by the Railway Board. He wished to know whether he would be in order if he moved an amendment that would save £40,000 on the present proposal? There was no doubt that this proposal now before them would mean the definite postponement of any further railway construction in that district for a generation. Therefore, it behoved them to spend that money in a way that would develop the country as much as possible. He moved to delete the first item on schedule (b), and insert, “From Carnarvon, via the vicinity of Willesden, and thence to Brandwacht and to Calvinia.” From the engineering point of view, there was no doubt, if they could deviate a railway so as to pick up the points they wished to touch at, and save a branch line, they saved a good deal of expenditure. If they deviated the line about 20 miles further than was the case, they would have done away with the necessity of the branch to Twee Rivers. This strange idea that the proper way to build lines of railway was by going straight across country was undoubtedly the most suicidal policy that could be imagined. There was no doubt the proper way was to deviate the line and take it up the valleys. Of course, with the majority the Minister had, he knew he could carry what he liked.

The amendment is out of order.

said he wanted to point out that the route he proposed passed through every point the present line was proposed to touch at, but obviated the necessity of the branch line.

asked the Chairman to explain his ruling.

The Governor-General has consented to these points in the line, and now the hon. member proposes to deviate them.

I thought he only consented to the amount of money?

No.

considered that to say that the Railway Board chose the route over which motors travelled most easily was a libel on a capable body of men who could not defend themselves. He doubted whether the hon. member had even been in the district which his amendment would affect. (Government cheers.) There was no part of the country which required railway communication more than the North-western district, and he hoped the Government would be supported in this line. Hon. members who in the past had urged that the Railway Board should be given ample powers were now crying out against the Board’s recommendations being adopted. The Railway Board was composed of independent men, and their only interests were the country’s.

said he was sorry he must differ from the right hon. member for Victoria West. He had no interest whatever as to which route was followed, except the interest of a man who wanted to see the best thing done for the good of the country. Hon. members had criticised the Board’s proposals, but he did not see how individual members of that House could say that they had better information on this subject than the Railway Board had. Putting aside the question of expense, the route recommended by the Board was one which would best serve the interests of the country. In the North-west there were innumerable alluvial valleys; there were huge dams, and below them were large areas of ground under cultivation. Between the main line and the proposed railway there was a distance of 90 miles, so that none of the intervening ground would be more than 50 miles from a railway, which was an important point to bear in mind. The route recommended by the Railway Board was the one which would best serve the interests of the country from a development point of view; it was the best and the most feasible route. Given railway communication, not only the Zak River, but other districts would produce very largely. After the money that had been expended by the Zak River Company, it would be a crime to say that the proposed railway was for the benefit of one company alone. The development of the Zak River required capital, and the whole country would benefit by the company opening up the district. As far as he knew the land, the proposed line would be very easy of construction. The House should have no hesitation in supporting the proposal in the Bill.

remarked that he was very sorry indeed that he could not say which was the best route.

said he did not think that the information with regard to this line was inadequate. He did not think it would be possible to introduce any railway line into Parliament to please all the people concerned. They were bound to have different views with regard to the routes to be taken. The expert opinion, and the opinion of the Railway Board were in favour of the survey which the Government now proposed. The right hon. the member for Victoria West would not surely tell the House that his views were superior to those of the railway experts.

I am giving the opinions of the engineer.

continuing, said if they were going to wait for unanimity they might as well abandon the idea of getting railways at all. This railway would enable them to increase their supply of wheat. They were importing wheat now, and the first duty of a Government was to see that the country grew its own bread within its own borders. His friend the member for Port Elizabeth, South West (Mr. Searle) gave them an estimate of 500,000 bags of wheat a year. Well, that amounted to 50,000 tons a year of wheat. If that estimate was realised then the line was going to pay, and the making of the line was justified. This line had been considered for many years, and these areas had been awaiting railway communication for many years. He hoped that Parliament would see its way this year to open up this country.

said that the Railway Board did not seem to be satisfied about this route, because they recommended an expenditure of £741,000 for possible divergencies. This taken in conjunction with the diverse views of members of the House, who in some cases expressed dissatisfaction at the amount of information supplied, proved to him that in only one or two instances had they information regarding the route. He knew nothing with regard to this line—(laughter)—and in that respect he was on a par with other members in the House. In consequence of the lack of information he thought the House would be well advised in opposing the schedule now, seeing that it involved an expenditure of over half a million pounds. He would move therefore that the further consideration of the operation of this schedule involving an expenditure of £635,000 stand over until they had more information upon the subject.

said he would have liked to have seen a report from the Irrigation Department as to the possibilities of developing these areas. Very serious mistakes had been made in building railways. Previously they had been apt to say that some of the railways were political railways, and that a railway carried so many votes, but he thought that that had now been done away with. (Hear, hear.) He was not sure if the proposed route was the best for developing that part of the country. If they looked at the map they would see that the railway did not go through that part where they had the most rivers. They could not be too careful in finding a proper route, and being able to know the quantity of land than would be available for irrigation. The land in the neighbourhood of the Zak River could only be irrigated by flood water. He thought the Government would do well to make more careful inquiries.

said the Minister knew that he (Sir Thomas) had always been extremely in favour of constructing these northern railways. The whole of the trouble arose because the Minister had not carried out the promise made by his predecessor last year, that he would introduce a Bill defining the powers of the Railway Board. Why he was so anxious that the Bill should go before the Select Committee was for the purpose of having the Railway Board’s views on the question. They had had no opportunity of having the real opinion of the Railway Board, and it was a most difficult thing with the small amount of information they had, to know which was the best route for development.

The Convention spirit.

said that the Convention spirit was that the Railway Board was to be a reality and not a sham. It was to be a body to give them information on lines, so that there would be no lines in the future chosen for political reasons. He would suggest that they should vote that amount of money, but leave it to the Railway Board to decide what the route should be. He thought that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, was taking too narrow a view of the subject. It made very little difference to Port Elizabeth whether the line was nearer to Fraserburg or not. He believed there were enormous reaches of the Zak River where there was a great opportunity for development. It was not fair to deal with the matter when the House had not had an opportunity of examining the Railway Board.

said he could not understand how the hon. member could speak in that light-hearted way, and propose to vote for that railway line when the committee had got so little information before them, not enough to determine whether the money was being properly spent or not. Rumour said that that Bill was going to be amongst the innocents which were going to be slaughtered. He would make the suggestion that they should put the Railway Construction Bill before the House at an early date, then the Government should refer the Railway Construction Bill to a Select Committee, as had been mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Those who had listened to the discussion, and he ventured to say no one could possibly form any opinion worth having merely from the discussions which had taken place in the House, must have realised it was a most difficult question to deal with. It was precisely one of those things which should be sent to a Select Committee, and the Railway Beard should have the opportunity of answering the questions and the criticism of well-informed members of the House, and the answer to the Railway Board would give them valuable information. At present none of them felt, if they did vote, that they had enough information to vote upon. The hon. member went on to point out how the hon. Minister had wasted time with regard to the Bill. He would vote against the proposals.

said that if they made that mistake now they would regret it after. In his opinion, it was undoubtedly the best route that the line should be built from Victoria West or a point near Victoria West. What was £200 or £300 more? He knew the district, and he thought that Fraserburg certainly had a claim to some consideration. If they took the line from a point nearer Fraser burg, they would serve directly the other town of Loxton, and that lay in the very best part of the country. He believed it was a shorter route. If he voted for the proposed line it would be very reluctantly. In his opinion it was worth while to wait another twelve months and have further investigations made, and he felt if they got proper evidence they would have a different view of the matter. He hoped the hon. Minister would postpone it for another year.

said when the hon. Minister replied to him a few days ago he told humourous stories about motor cars, which were most entertaining, but rather lacking in information, and to-night he would have the opportunity of giving more information, and would not have the last word. He drew the attention of the hon. Minister to some of the discussions which had been given to the House. He had heard the evidence of those who had been there, but the most important was the discussion put forward by the Minister himself. They found that in an area of 89,000 morgen, 45,000 morgen could be put under irrigation. Had the Minister endeavoured to make a deal with those people for the benefit of the country? They were going to spend three-quarters of a million, which would change the value of that property from about £1 to £50 a morgen. That would be the price when the railways were put there. It was giving them a very handsome present. Would not they be willing to negotiate? If he were the owner he would be glad to give, at any rate, a quarter of its increased value. Had it occurred to the Minister to try to make that deal? They expected to turn out 400,000 bags of wheat, and they could irrigate only 40,000 acres; that was, 40,000 tons would be carried, and taking a halfpenny a ton per mile, it gave them £16,000 per year.

Port Elizabeth, Southwest): What about the stock?

said that the livestock was put down at £3,819. The total earnings of the line were estimated to be £23,427, and the total loss on the revised estimate was to be £27,000. The earnings were based on the maximum production, and if that was the boasted result of that railway, surely it was not justified. In the absence of any information he would have to vote against the railway. He had suggested a Select Committee, so that they could have had the Railway Board before it, and other evidence, but the hon. Minister had made a flippant answer, and had given no information at all. They had had an arrogant statement from the Minister that they were not going to have a statement except upon what the Minister chose to submit to the Board. It came to this, that they were either misleading Parliament and fooling the country, or fooling themselves. As long as the Government refused to enquire over the whole field, they could not take the risks of bearing the truth. If there was a better case which could be put up for the line surely let them get the testimony of those who could give that testimony, and let members of Parliament have the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses; but they had no earthly chance of getting it out in a committee debate like that.

said he knew the part of the country concerned well, and he contended that the proposed route was not the right one. This route would not open the North-west, but would only help one company. Every year a deputation had waited on the Government in regard to a railway for the North-west, but the route now proposed had never been asked for. The line from Graafwater to Van Rhynsdorp was not yet completed, and Namaqualand had to buy corn from Zak River, and now it would be taken to Johannesburg. What, ho asked, was to become of Namaqualand? He feared that if the present proposal was accepted nothing would be done to open up Namaqualand. The fault lay with the Board. He did not wish to vote against the line, though he deeply regretted it was proposed. The north-west was out of reach of everything, and ought to have a railway.

said that the crux of the whole thing was that if they built the line which other members and himself wished to be built, it would cost more money, and therefore they could not make an amendment. Let them recognise that fact. Would not the Government take into consideration whether they could not build the other line, and whether that could not be constructed for the same money as they had got down there? Could not another engineer estimate for the line? We had got our railway engineers into the habit of over-estimating, the result being that enormous savings had been effected on lines which had been constructed recently. One engineer, so careful was he in drawing up his estimates, that he was called “Safe side Jones.” (Laughter.) Only his name was not Jones. However, they could not alter the line now, and no one wished to postpone construction for years. Next year there would be no railway building. He thought the wrong line had been taken, but still, at the same time, they ought to get to work. He wished the Government was a little more sympathetic and would take steps to see whether it could construct the other line for the same money.

suggested that powers should be given to change the route so long as the railway touched the points mentioned in the Bill. He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Victoria West that for a part of the route one could practically place rails on the veld. However, he would sooner leave the matter in the hands of the Minister and the Railway Board rather than tie them up. He believed that if the Minister went over the route with the Railway Board he would find the line advocated by the right hon. member for Victoria West was by far the better one.

said his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) was forgetting that there were other members from other Provinces who wished for more information on this subject.

in supporting the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, said the House had sufficient faith in the Minister and the Railway Board to know that if they obtained the information they would come to a correct conclusion. In reply to the hon. member for Three Rivers, he would like to say that it was not a question of knowing the district, but of studying the plan and reading the engineer’s report. He appealed to the Minister to adopt the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, and then the junction could be made either at Carnarvon or Victoria West.

said the alternative line from Victoria West was more to the interests of Port Elizabeth than the other one. If he took a narrow view of it, he would oppose it, for Port Elizabeth had no trade connection with Fraserburg. He would like to know what arrangement the Minister was making with regard to the obtaining of the ground required for the building of a railway. Surely, in view of the enormous addition that would be made to the value of the ground to be traversed by the railway, the company ought to place the ground required for the railway at the disposal of the Government free of charge— in fact, the company ought to pay the Government a bonus.

said, with regard to the various views expressed upon this route, he admitted that in many cases the feeling of many members was a genuine feeling of conviction, but he must confess that he took exception to the attitude of the hon. member for Pretoria East, because it was clear that he did not want information. What he wanted was to kill this line altogether. He wanted to kill the development they were proposing in those Northwestern Districts. His argument with regard to the possibilities of the development from any point of that railway would apply to any point of any other railway. What the hon. member was driving at, was that this part of the country was not worth developing. It had constantly been said that they should get rid of the selection of these railway routes upon a political basis. Therefore this Railway Board had been appointed, so that they might have the opinion of a non-political body of men, who, as experts, would be able to tell them what was the right route. He could well imagine what would have been his position if he had desired to build a railway, say, from Victoria West. It would have been pointed out that this was a political railway, yet he was being crucified now simply for adopting the report of the Railway Board. The selection of a route for the development of the North-western part of Cape Province was most difficult and complicated, and his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West did the Railway Board very scant justice when he said that they had not made a study of this question. He did not think any district had been more carefully studied than this particular route. The functions of the Railway Board were to report to Parliament upon the lines that were suggested to them. It was suggested that they should build a line from Carnarvon to Calvinia, and they had their report upon that. What they were told was, that the Government desired to open up the North-western Districts, with a view to getting to those rich wheat fields which they all desired to develop. (Hear, hear.) The Railway Board was not given any route to report upon. They were simply told the object of the line. Look at their map. Any hon. member could see that they had taken the greatest possible pains to get all available information. (Hear, hear.)

From the South also.

Yes, from the South also. Continuing, the Minister said what had been done was this. They knew how people got information. The Railway Board got their information in the same way. It was got by trustworthy officials who inquired into the matter and then gave in their report. They then proceeded to examine the information and he would say this, that not once or twice, but thrice, the Railway Board had travelled over every inch of the proposed routes The original proposal was to proceed by Van Wyks Vlei and then come round to Brandt Vlei, where a great development had taken place, and then go southward, but after thinking over the matter they thought it best that the approach should be from the eastern side, and therefore they thought it best to come lower down than Van Wyks Vlei. Take the Carnarvon line. When that line was built from Victoria West to Carnarvon there was no doubt that it was built with the idea that it should be extended round to Calvinia. From the railway point of view alone there were enormous advantages in making the line proceed from Carnarvon. That was one point, but that was not entirely the deciding factor. The deciding factor was the question of how to get to those wheatfields. Any alternative proposal would involve sixty or seventy miles more route. It was impossible to set that aside against what was there. They had alone the fact that between Loxton and Williston they touched the Zak River somewhat earlier, perhaps 30 miles, but these portions of the Zak River would be developed by the lower route proposed by the hon. member. It was a great mistake to speak about the country between Carnarvon and the Zak River as sheep country, they had great possibilities of cultivation along those 40 or 50 miles which was considered to be sheep country and nothing else. A great deal of development was going on along there. If they wanted to develop the upper reaches of the Zak River the true route, if they took that view, was from Krom River. The objection to that was that it required a 1 in 50 gradient, and it was extremely inadvisable to build a railway there on that account. The hon. Minister went on to say that on the whole the Railway Board had examined things from every possible point of view. That was the decision of the Railway Board.

said he wanted their decision after further consideration.

They have been considering the matter for two years. They had convinced his predecessor and they had convinced him. Beyond the Krom River suggestion there was only one alternative, and that was to approach from Ceres. The hon. Minister went on to accuse the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, of changing his mind in the matter. He said that perhaps, by-and-bye, he would be in favour of the line going from Carnarvon. He went on to say that it was not true that the proposed line had been decided upon in the interests of a company. Only one-third of the district belonged to that company, and that portion did not by any manner of means exhaust the possibilities. The suggestion that the Railway Board should go before a Select Committee surprised him, they wanted a non-political body to give their opinion, and when they had given their opinion it was suggested that they be sent to a Select Committee. It would be a case of pull devil, pull baker business there; let them imagine the political wires that would be pulled. In conclusion, he said that he could reasonably accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

regarding the suggestion that he had changed his mind, said that the Board itself had changed its mind during the last 12 months. The proposition before the House was a different one which they had before them 12 months ago. To say that he had changed his mind was unfair and incorrect. As the report showed, the Board had not made up their mind yet; and how did they know that they would not change their mind for the third or the fourth time? There was nothing unusual in such a Bill being referred to a Select Committee, and it had been done by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said that he thought it would save the Minister a good deal of time if that thing did go to a Select Committee.

said that he had never asked or heard any hon. member ask that a Select Committee should decide. What they wanted was a Select Committee to get the information as to which line should be put forward; and how necessary it was to get that information had been shown by the Minister in his speech just now. As to what the Minister had said that he (the hon. member) did not want railway development, he did not know what the strongest Parliamentary term was for an inaccurate statement, but he wanted to infer that. The Minister had misquoted the Act of Union, and had said that the line had to be referred to the Board by the Government, which was not the case. The Minister had stated that the statements which had been put forward by hon. members were inaccurate. They had been taken from the report of last year. They had contradictory statements before them; the Minister said one thing the report another. For the first time they now got the information that there were large areas which were cultivable and, he presumed, irrigable, on the upper reaches of the Zak River, which were going to be developed by that railway, but there was no reference to that in the balance-sheet which had been drawn up. It was not true that he was against that railway, or that part of the country being developed, but he said that they had not sufficient information before them. The present reading of the Act was a travesty, and was far removed from the intention of the National Convention.

Hear, hear.

There is not a vestige left of the great magna chart a of the North.

Hear, hear.

said that the committee was entitled to know how much area of ground was to be opened up on the upper reaches of the Zak River, and how much of it would come under water. There was nothing to show that the loss of £27,000 a year was not going to continue for ever. (Hear, hear.) He would take it kindly if the Minister would tell them what area he referred to, and if he meant irrigable area.

I do not know whether the hon. member is serious—

It is an impertinence to say that.

said the hon. member’s question was an utterly unreasonable one. How could he tell the hon. member how many acres could be cultivated? He was assured by the Director of Irrigation that there was plenty of rich cultivable land on the “Nile” portion of the Zak River, and in addition to that there was plenty of cultivation likely to take place outside that area, but he (Mr. Burton) could not tell the acreage.

said that if the Minister would take the matter in the right spirit he would quote the question correctly. He wished to know about how much land was going to be opened up above the area mentioned in the official report, and could it be put under cultivation. If that were not a fair, intelligible and reasonable question, then he would submit to be taunted by the Minister that his intervention was not serious, though he doubted whether anyone else would put that construction upon it.

Item No. 1, Carnarvon to Calvinia, £635,000, was agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.