from J. Topping, of Observatory, who entered the Cape Railway Department in 1902 and was dismissed in 1911, praying that the House may consider the circumstances of his case and grant him relief.

from T. Eden, who entered the Transvaal Civil Service as Boring Inspector in 1904, and after having been retrenched in 1905 was reinstated in 1906, praying for the condonation of the said break in his service.

asking that Zastron be declared the seat of a magistracy.

Estimates of expenditure to be defrayed year ending 31st March, 1914 (Natal).

Proclamation of Brooklyn, Daspoort, Gezina, Hatfield, Mayville, Rietfontein, Villieria, etc., as infected with small-pox.

Copy of a New Clause Thirteen in the Ocean Mail Contract.

said no reference was made to the deletion of the words “and extension” made by the Committee. He felt so strongly on this matter that he intended to take the feeling of the House in a definite manner. He appealed to hon. members on this occasion to rise superior to those petty individualistic ideas that a great many of them perhaps might have, and to think only of the benefit of the State. He moved that the words be added.

What words?

“And extension,” after “conservation” in sub-section (a). Those words were in the original Bill.

I must point out to the hon. member that there must be some misunderstanding. He will see that this clause was not in the old Bill, and the final clause as adopted now appears as the new clause.

The Bill which we considered came down from the other place, and it had this clause.

That did not form part of the Bill; it was a mere suggestion of the Senate. It did not form part of the Bill, because they had no right to insert such clause.

Am I able to move it in as a further amendment?

Oh; yes.

said he would move, then, to insert after “conservation” the words “and extension.”

said that on page 942 of the Votes and Proceedings, it was recorded that the hon. member for George moved to omit “and the extension,” and that the amendment of the hon. member was agreed to.

That is so, but the clause was not part of the Bill. The new clause is put in the Bill as finally printed.

said he would support the amendment. He saw no reason why these words should be left out. Why, he asked, should it not be made clear that the Government had power, for the general good of the Union, to extend forests, and to begin to establish forests or plantations where none existed now?

The amendment was then put, and declared to be negatived.

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

put the amendment on page 10, clause 11, in lines 5 and 8.

moved, as an amendment, in line 6, to omit “sterling”, and in the same line, after “payment”, to omit “of such fine” and to substitute “(to)”.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 12, Reservation of trees,

put the first amendment in line 9.

moved, as an amendment: To negative the first part of the amendment, viz., the omission of the words “any tree or species of tree” and to transpose the word “or” from before “species,” to follow after “of tree.”

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

put the remaining amendment.

moved, as an amendment, to negative the first part of the amendment, viz.: the omission of the words “species of tree,” and after “tree” to insert “or.”

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

On new clause 14, Allotment of trees offered for selection,

said that if this clause was carried, they would be giving away assets of the State below their real value. He detailed the system under which trees were sold to woodcutters at Knysna, and said that, if two or more men wanted a particular tree, it was put up to auction, which commenced at the upset price, and by such means the Government got a fair market price for each tree. Under this clause it was proposed to sell these trees, not by public auction, but by lot. When two or more men wanted a tree, they would draw lots for it; and then they got the tree at the upset price, which was much below its market value. The Chief Conservator of Forests, in his report last year, pointed out that the upset price was fixed in 1899, since when the price of timber had increased, and that the price at Knysna was really very low. It was not only below the market price, but it was below the price paid in the Eastern Conservancy. He thought the state of affairs was a scandal, and that they were going to give away assets of the State. This system of lots had been under consideration by the department for some time, and no legal opinion had been taken. This was really a contravention of the Lottery Act, but the hon. member for George had been careful enough to provide against any such contingency. They had had complaints from the woodcutters for the last twenty years. He knew they were very poor men, but these men only did three days work out of the week, because the amount they gained thereby enabled them to eke out a bare existence for the remainder of the week. Work was becoming distasteful to these woodcutters, though it was only fair to say that those cutters who had joined the Railway Department had turned out, on the whole, very good workmen. The House was now asked to continue a system that was detrimental to these men and degrading to them. If this clause was passed, they would be giving away State assets, over-riding the Lottery Act, and not doing any good to the woodcutters.

said he was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Surely they should consider these men on a basis other than £ s. d. basis. They knew of the evil effects of selling Crown lands at the biggest price, and much mischief had been done. This was a system of a similar character, though necessarily on a smaller scale. He did not want to expose these people to competition with prosperous merchants. Let the Government charge any upset price they wanted. They must do the best they could for the people, and not drive their theories too far. He did hope the House would agree to what they had done in Committee. He was sure that this would be a step in the right direction towards putting these people in a more prosperous condition. Now his hon. friend objected to the system of drawing lots when two or three wanted the same tree. But surely he must recollect that they had adopted a similar system with regard to Crown lands.

It is against the Lottery Act.

It is not against the Lottery Act. It would be against the Lottery Act if these people paid down say 5s. That might be against the Lottery Act, but this was nothing of the sort.

said it was very impressive to hear the right hon. member for Victoria West, clearly and vigorously objecting to the definition of certain rules. In his (Mr. Duncan’s) opinion, no class of the community could be improved by State charity, or by being given State assets. (Hear, hear.) As far as he knew these people had not been able so far to improve their positions. He would like to ask his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West whether these people, if this system were in operation, would be in a better condition. Do not let them adopt this policy because it was going to better these people’s position. He did not think it would do so at all. The position of these woodcutters was exactly the same as that of other unfortunate people.

said he hoped after the earnest appeal of the right hon. member for Victoria West that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would withdraw his opposition. For weeks and weeks the amendment was on the paper, and when the matter was before the House, where was his hon. friend? He was busy in the library, preparing his thunderbolts, which he sent forth in the City Hall the previous evening. (Laughter.) Instead of being in the House, the hon. member was in the library dissecting draft Ordinances of another body. His hon. friend was down upon him for endeavouring to infringe the Lottery Act, but he (Mr. Currey) would point out that it was within the province of Parliament to alter the Lottery Act if it saw fit, but this was not against the Lottery Act at all. Was his hon. friend aware that in the Defence Act the ballot system could be applied. It was also stated that they sought to sell these trees for nothing. He (Mr. Currey) would point out that they wanted to do nothing of the sort. What they wanted was simply that the principle of the Land. Act should be applied to. trees, nothing more and nothing less. Instead of having an upset price they wanted a fair price put upon the trees. His hon. friend the member for Fordsburg said that for 20 years they had tried and failed. This, he admitted, but the failure was due to their not having tried to put in force this system, which they were trying to put in force now. The Treasury would not suffer by this system, and the people would get the benefit. His hon. friend said that these people worked two days out of the week, and did nothing the rest of the time. The reason why they did nothing was because they had no work to do, and no wood to work. These people did not seek charity. What they sought was fair play. They did very hard work indeed. He was surprised at the attitude of his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) who had simply read a newspaper report, and then come down to the House prepared on this scanty information to oppose the proposal.

pointed out that this was not charity at all. It was simply a question of delivering the woodcutter out of the hands of some storekeepers. Let the State accept a fair price for the trees, but don’t play the wood cutter into the hands of the capitalists, small or great.

said that if the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had only had correct information he would have refrained from making the remarks he did. If a purchaser bought a tree he had to take the fullest responsibility whether there were 100 trees or only 20. Now as regarded the giving away of timber, he would say that they did not advocate that the Government should give away timber gratis. What they wanted was that the Government should fix the tariff rate by regulation. The wood cutters would not object to a reasonable tariff.

said it was rather a pity that the hon. member for George adopted an attitude which tended to make people vote for a proposal he (Mr. Currey) objected to. He (Sir Thomas) agreed with the hon. member because he knew the conditions which prevailed at Knysna. It sometimes happened that a man who had someone at his back bought a large portion of a forest, and rack-rented it to smaller people, who were practically compelled to sell the wood at a certain price. (Hear, hear.) It was in the interests of the people themselves and of the state that a fair price should be put on the timber, and if there was more than one applicant for it, instead of setting the people to bid against one another and thus incurring a liability the extent of which they did not fully grasp, they should be allowed to draw lots, and to make a reasonable profit on the transaction. Although he was anxious to see the estate of the public protected the principle of drawing lots was not a new one, because it had been used in the case of the leasing of Government farms in the Cape.

said that a perpetuation of the conditions relating to the woodcutters was not a good thing for the State.

said he would like to know what was to happen to the man who did not draw a lot. He would be prepared to vote for the State making a sacrifice if it would benefit the woodcutter, but the proposal would simply add to the demoralisation under which these people had been allowed to eke out an existence. The people were so demoralised that after they had worked for a few days they would not work again until they had exhausted their credit at the local stores. He would make almost any sacrifice in order to have these people put on their feet again. But nothing beneficial would be done to them by allowing them to have State property at less than its proper value. If, however, they could be persuaded to work six days a week they would earn a good living. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the rack-renting to which reference had been made had actually occurred. In conclusion, Sir Edgar said the House should take these people by the hand and put them on firm ground.

The amendments were agreed to.

put the amendment in sub-section (a) of clause 18.

moved, as an amendment in line 11, to omit “on”, and substitute “in”.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

On the schedule, Laws repealed,

hoped that the House would negative the amendment which had been made in committee for the deletion of the Forest Act Amendment Act, 1908 (Cape). Then all the municipalities of the Union would be put in the same position and have the control of the trees on their commonages.

said that as he did not wish to put the Cape Province on a different footing to the other Provinces he would not press the matter.

The amendment made in committee was negatived.

On clause 2, Interpretation of terms,

moved in line 40, after “forest” to insert “on Crown land.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 14 was further verbally amended.

On clause 15, Removal of or injury to trees and kindling of fires in or near undemarcated forests.

moved, in line 22, to omit “one year”, and to substitute “six months”.

Agreed to.

On clause 18,

moved to insert the following new sub-section, to follow sub-section (b): “(c) without authority cuts, injures, destroys or removes any forest produce or strips off the bark or leaves from any tree, or injures, alters or removes any beacon, boundary mark or fence.”

Agreed to.

On clause 19,

moved in line 62, to omit “twelve”, and to substitute “six”.

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

said he would like to call the Minister’s attention to the great importance of enclosing any new plantations that were opened, for instance, in the Tsitsikama. He referred to the damage that was done to forests by the grazing of cattle.

said that the tariff of prices in force to-day was much below the market price, and not only that, but it was below the price fixed in other conservancies. Unless the Minister gave the House a satisfactory assurance as to what he was going to do in regard to revising the tariff, he (Mr. Jagger) would have to oppose the third reading being taken at the present time.

said he would like to call the Minister’s attention to the damage done by the grazing of cattle in the forests of the Eastern Province to the head waters of rivers. If possible, these areas should be fenced in, and under no circumstances should they be grazed over.

said that if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would supply him with particulars in regard to any case, he would take steps to draw the attention of the department to them. That also applied to the statement made by the hon. member for Humansdorp in regard to fencing. In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, when this new system was put into operation, a revision of the tariff would necessarily follow. The hon. member could rest assured that the interests of the State would be protected.

asked whether he would be in order in moving an amendment at this stage?

replied in the negative.

said that, on the consideration of the amendments, clause 19 got through before he noticed that they had reached that point. In this clause they were introducing an entirely new principle, a principle which was no principle at all, except a bad principle, and a principle that he believed nowhere in the civilised world outside South Africa would they be able to discover, and that was that a person might be punished for trespassing, as it was here stated, “wilfully” trespassing. He supposed that in a time of national stress the great land owners would come forward and say, “Come along, bear arms in defence of our land and our forests,” and if some calamity fell on the country they would call upon the whole of the people to help them to relieve the situation. But, when a man wished to walk over the land, and admire the beauties of the trees, he was to be subjected to a fine of £10 or one month. The whole thing was preposterous, and a deliberate attack on the liberties of the subject. He called upon this House to support him in opposing the third reading of this Bill, and to make it impossible for this injustice to be perpetrated in a country that was supposed to be civilised.

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

put the new clause 5.

moved, as an amendment, to transpose all the words from “on the 11th day” in line 44, down to “published” in line 45, to follow after “entered into”, in line 43.

Agreed to.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to.

The amendments in the Title were agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the Bill be now read a third time,

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved the reinserting of the last proviso of sub-section (f) of the clause. He did not take up the position of hon. members on the cross-benches that the House was doing an act of injustice; he did not think that they fully realised the situation; but he did not see why the people mentioned in this sub-section should not be given the rights that were accorded them in the original Bill. He thought that the original proposal was the fairest thing.

said the committee did not think it was fair that a man should have his cake and eat it—that he should have two opstals. The man who lived in the mountain might be an intolerable nuisance, and he would get more rights than anybody else had got.

Don’t take away his house and wells.

Don’t take away— has my hon. friend ever been there? Continuing, he said that he thought that his hon. friend knew very little about the matter. They were trying to give every man what they considered was his due.

On clause 14, Vesting of ownership of remainder of commonage of outer commonage in a committee,

said that as it was not competent for him to move an amendment, he would like to enter his protest against the clause which provided for the vesting of this enormous tract of ground in a committee. He thought this was a great mistake; it should at least have been vested in the Municipality of Carnarvon.

who remarked that the state of his health prevented him from being in the House the other night, said that his hon. friend started from an entirely false premise. He pointed out that the municipality had full control over the inner commonage; the outer commonage might seem an enormous tract of country to them, but they must look at it from the standpoint from which it was viewed in the days when it was granted. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said if these people got a title to that ground under certain conditions, they might run stock up to 500 head of sheep for each person. They had also certain rights to select opstallen here and there. It had not been possible to improve this, because it was not possible to improve anything that was held in that way, and in fact there was no inducement to improve the ground.

They had been trying to settle this question for years back, and Mr. Vos—who was one of the most thorough and excellent officials they had—was sent down to see what could be done, and this Bill was the result of Mr. Vos’s labours. The rights to this ground had already been disposed of years ago, and he did not think his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) would have made the remarks that he did if he had known this. The Bill simply sought to give a definition to rights that were already in existence.

rose to address the House—

pointed out that the hon. member for Georgetown could not move the amendment that he desired, because he had not given notice of it, therefore the word “Committee” must remain. The hon. member was, therefore, not entitled to speak.

I understand, sir, that the right hon. the member for Victoria West made a statement, and I desire to reply.

Yes, I allowed the right hon. the member for Victoria West to reply because I allowed the hon. member for Georgetown to speak.

Am I out of order, Mr. Speaker, in supplementing what my hon. friend the hon. member for Georgetown said.

Yes, the hon. member is out of order. It is not possible to give arguments upon an amendment that has not been moved.

The Committee’s amendments were all agreed to without further amendment.

explained that his objection was that this vast tract of land should be vested in the committee in trust for a few opstal owners. All these opstallen were tending to get into the hands of a few, and perhaps one or two individuals. The hon. member for Victoria West pointed out that these people had a complete title to this land, but it seemed difficult for him to understand if they had a complete title to the ownership of land why they wanted to go further. He understood, however, that they never had any right to ownership of this land. They had grazing rights over it—that was all. Why should they go further, therefore, and give them absolute ownership when they had only grazing rights.

said he believed that the holders of these opstallen rights had gradually been weeded out until there were only about 30 or 40 at the present time, and they only had grazing rights upon the outer common, although some of them had opstallen there. They had illegally fenced in a portion of the outer common, and now they came along and asked for full title to land amounting to about 280 square miles. The House was asked therefore to give title to this land because a few individuals came and asked for it when they had only grazing rights. It was not in the best interests of the community that this should be done.

replying to the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria West said that the remarks which he (Mr. Andrews) made on a former afternoon were not made without some study of the question, and despite the eloquent speech made by the right hon. gentleman he still maintained the opinion as he formerly held. He was not a lawyer, but it seemed to him unnecessary to pass this Bill if these people were legally in possession of these rights. It seemed to him that something was wrong, and their objection to vesting this valuable piece of land in the hands of a more or less self elected committee could not be expressed in too strong terms He was astounded at the attitude taken up by the Opposition over this matter, an Opposition which said it was in favour of closer settlement. Was the Opposition in favour of the handing over of national assets to a few favoured persons? He could characterise the business only as a national scandal. The country would look upon the fact that the Government and the official Opposition were neglecting their duties, and were not considering the rights of the people in this particular connection, and so many others.

said that the Bill as amended by the Select Committee did give considerably more rights than existed before.

The Bill was read a third time.

said he wished to bring up the question of principle in the construction of lines generally. In his last report the General Manager of Railways stated that the building of new lines should be limited to the standard gauge as far as possible, and only be undertaken when and where the traffic is heavy enough to justify their construction. According to the report of the Railway Board, the total earnings for this line were estimated to be £1,237 for the first 12 months of working, while the total working expenditure was put down at £2,349, to which would have to be added the sum of £2,131 for interest on capital at 3½ per cent. Considering the small amount of goods traffic it was expected that the line would carry, the Minister could oblige the local people almost as well with a Kafir and a wheelbarrow. (Laughter.) As far as the passenger traffic was concerned, that would probably better be served by a motor-car service, which could also carry parcels. He suspected that the line was proposed in order to get the Government out of a legal difficulty, as the line of which this would be an extension was not built according to the route sanctioned by Parliament, and it seemed to him that the Government did an illegal act in altering the route. Now, when they had built a line that they had no right to build, they came to the House to sanction the extension, and to condone the illegality that was committed in 1910-11. Apart from that, there was the question of whether they should not follow the advice of the General Manager in regard to the institution of road motor transport in country where railways were not likely to pay. He (Mr. Meyler) was a strong advocate of this system, and he should like to see more of it. Of all the lines set out in the schedule, this item No. 2 showed the worst return, as far as goods traffic was concerned.

said that the information given in the report was to the effect that there was a saving on something else, and that it might as well be spent on this line. That was what it amounted to. An amount of £60,900 was saved in the construction of a bridge near Melk Station. The Board last year recommended that the consideration of this matter be postponed. The points that seemed to him to be worth consideration were: that the gross earnings of this line were barely half the capital already expended, and also barely half the working expenses. There seemed to be no prospect of an increase. If they looked at the report, it was simply a matter of £60,000 thrown away. Why should they not spend this money in other parts where extensions were urgently required, and where there was a prospect of getting a good return later on?

said that, in regard to all these projects, his own opinion was that the recommendations of the Railway Board, who were practical men, and who had been inquiring into these things, should be, in the main, adopted; but what struck him in connection with this item was that there was really no recommendation by the Board. There was only an allusion to a sum of money which had been saved in another direction, and which might be expended in the construction of this line. He had felt all along, in perusing these reports, and the accompanying maps, that they had no general map on which the scheme which the Government brought forward could be displayed. He thought that, in future proposals of this kind, it would be a good arrangement if the Engineer-in-Chief were to provide a large scale map, showing what the Government proposed.

said that there was absolutely no recommendation from the Board at all. The only excuse was that there had been a saving of £60,000 on account of a certain bridge not having to be constructed, and that money was to be spent on the extension. He remembered other instances where savings had been effected on lines that were built, and where these savings were calmly appropriated to other purposes. It simply came to this, that there was to be a saving of £60,000 on this line, which must be chucked away, by extending it on to the veld or to an outspan. Of all the proposals before the Committee, this was the one, perhaps, that was going to entail the biggest loss on the country. It was now proposed to carry this line 17 miles further to an outspan, and he supposed the intention was to ultimately extend the line a further 19 miles to Barkly East. This further extension, to which they were practically committing themselves by this line, was going to cost £173,000. It was difficult to judge what would be the results of the line, so far as it had been made to Melk Station, but they could form some impression by the line from Aliwal North to Lady Grey. That line had been open for some considerable time, and cost £154,000, and yet, according to the General Manager’s report of last year, it showed a loss on the working of £2,440. Altogether, there was a loss on that line of £7,300. There was no doubt that the line now under discussion was the worst showing, financially, of any line in the schedule. The total working expenses of the line worked out at £256 a mile, while the total receipts were £70 per mile. He wanted the House to consider whether they were justified in extending a line like this, and whether it would not be far better and more businesslike to withdraw it from the schedule, and substitute a motor service, as suggested by the hon. member for Weenen? He moved, as an amendment, to delete all the words after “No. 2,” for the purpose of inserting, “from Belmont to a point in the vicinity of Saltpan, 29 miles, in the direction of Douglas.”

ruled that the amendment was not in order.

said he would like to have the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that particular point. He wanted to suggest a far better use. They had the records there and the route had been surveyed. What he wanted to suggest was that they should simply spend the money in carrying the line in the direction he had suggested. However, as the Chairman had ruled the amendment out of order, he would be forced to vote against the line, but he wanted to show the House that the money could be devoted to a more profitable purpose. To his mind the House was not justified under the circumstances in sanctioning such a line as was proposed.

disagreed with the views expressed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). The loss on the line, so far as it existed, he contended, was due to the fact that the line did not go far enough. As regarded the suggestion for a motor service, he maintained that such a service was an impossibility in this part of the country. After a heavy rain the ground became so soft that a motor would sink into it. He also held that the country which would be opened up was a rich one with great potentialities. (Hear, hear.)

argued that the district was one of the best parts of South Africa. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was altogether misinformed. Barkly East district was also a wheat and grain growing district, one of the best in the country.

said it was a strange thing that they could not have sections provided, for all the use the plans were they might be so much waste paper, and it would be well if all the money that had been spent on them had been saved. A section was a much more important thing than a plan, but there was only one line in the whole book that had a section. There they were expected to vote for a line, and the only information that they had was a red worm across the paper. Whether the cuttings were deep or the banks high, or whether any masonry work or bridges were required, they had no more idea than the man in the moon. There, it appeared that the Government were actually proposing to use 35 lb. rails on a South African standard gauge railway. In his opinion nothing ought to be imported into this country under 60 lb. weight. If they were going to run a railway on 35 lb. rails in such a country as that, with the necessity for a great number of sharp curves, they were adopting a very dangerous principle, and before long they would have some such accident as the Gaika Loop disaster to open the eyes of the House. It was absolutely necessary that they should give as much time to the construction of their railways as they possibly could. The Government were acting very unwisely in tying their hands, by saying they must go from such a point to such a point, when later on they might get some information which might enable them to save thousands of pounds, and would not be able to do it because it was passed in a certain form in the House. So far as he could judge from the plan, it was very rough country, and there were frequent sharp curves which were necessary. The cost per mile was certain proof that there were high banks and deep cuttings. They should keep abreast of the times. All the Government had to do was to put locomotives fitted for going round sharp curves on the line.

said that that saving of £60,000 was really not a saving at all. It was only a temporary saving, and if they had subsequently to find the money, he supposed it would come out of revenue, and those who paid the rates would have to pay for it. A 35 lb. rail was not the rail fit for ordinary traffic on a standard guage. He did not believe there was another standard guage in the country where there was a 35 lb. rail. If it were found necessary to protect heavy traffic on the line the chief engineer would report that it was not fit to carry heavy traffic, and the question of relaying would then have to be considered. The same thing would happen with regard to the gradient, and if regrading was found necessary later on the people who used the main line would have to find the money.

dealt with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, but his remarks were inaudible.

asked the Minister whether there was any possibility of the Government adopting the principle of using sharper curves and using the money saved thereby for railway extension. He thought they would get safer railways if they used 60 lb. rails, 150 ft. radius curves, and proper rolling stock and engines.

said that undoubtedly something could be said for the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban with regard to the advantage that might be gained by carrying out the idea of the proposed schemes of the Government on a larger scale. He would point out, however, the circumstances changed very rapidly in this country, and they might commit themselves to something about which they would find afterwards they had made a mistake. He quite understood the suggestion—though nothing of the sort had been carried out before—and he thought it had its value. With regard to the line that had been referred to there was no doubt that the figures did not show a favourable result. They could not expect, unless in exceptional circumstances, that a single one of these agricultural developing lines would show a profit in the first year. He pointed out that the district of Barkly East was a most excellent district. It was one of the finest wheat growing districts in South Africa, but, of course, the difficulty of transporting in the past had prevented people developing that territory. The country lying below the Drakensberg was some of the finest in the whole country, and the proposition of building a line was as sound as any railway project ever made in this country. It had been said that no recommendation had been made by the Board. He did not know how anybody could maintain such a position, because the Board always began by recommending. The arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, did not carry conviction. The railway should really go on to Barkly East, and the sooner that was done the better. It had been said that these people could be served by a motor service, but the country was rough and mountainous, and was absolutely unsuited to motor traffic. The hon. member for Umlazi would find all the information he required on page 33 of the report. With regard to sharp curves, the Minister was understood to say that there might be something in the suggestion, but he was not prepared to carry it into effect at present. Replying to the hon. member for Fordsburg, he said that the reversing station would serve the traffic even in the future, and there would be no necessity to build a bridge.

*Mr. H. M. MEYLER (Weenen) said he was afraid the Minister had not read the General Manager’s report, neither did he remember the answer which he gave to a question the other day. If the Minister said that it was possible to get the required gradient of 1 in 36 for a railway then he thought it was quite possible to carry out a motor service on a gradient of 1 in 15. He pointed out that £40,000 could be saved even if they built a brand new road by inaugurating a motor service, which could be arranged just like a railway service. With regard to the working of the Barkly East section already completed he pointed out that last year, in January, the Board reported that it could not give any idea of the prospects, owing to the fact that the station was only opened in December. Though the station had been working for eighteen months, it was remarkable that in the latest report of the Bill identically the same words were used.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria, South, informed the House that this was the best part of the country. There never was a railway yet but people did not say that it went through the best part of the country. There was only one way that they could judge of these things, and that was by results. Take the line, of which this was only a part, he meant the line from Aliwal North to Lady Grey. That line had been open for traffic for the past 10 years. It went through the same class of country, and yet what were the results? The total traffic of that line was £6,258 per year. The total working expenses, irrespective of interest, were £8,702, and the total loss was £7,316. This line went through exactly the same class of country except that when it got further up towards Barkly East it was going to cost far more. Was the Government justified in placing this further burden—which was going to cost the country several thousands a year— on the shoulders of the taxpayers?

suggested that the Minister should make further enquiry with regard to the sharper curves and heavier rails. If such a type of locomotive as the Garret were used, and heavy rails, it might effect a saving of £25,000 upon this line alone. He warned the Minister against using 35 lb. rails, and strongly advised him to use 60 lb. rails.

said there had been a great deal of discussion on this line. People were not aware of the fact that this railway project was started in 1902. He (Sir Thomas) was responsible for introducing a small part of it into the House. They found, however, that this was inadequate, and in 1906 there was a further Bill introduced to carry on the line to Lady Grey, on the assumption that the line would eventually go on to Barkly East, because, unless it went on to Barkly East, it was impossible to open up the country. The position was this, that until the line went on to Barkly East, it was not going to be largely used. He made bold to say that there was no district in South Africa that contained such magnificent merino sheep as Barkly East. (Hear, hear.) But until the line went further the people were not going to use it. When the line was extended further it would touch a large wheat belt. It would also touch a portion of Basutoland. He hoped that the line would be extended eventually to a place where it would be useful.

Item 2 was agreed to.

said there was no need to say much about the necessity for this line. He looked on it as a part of the great national coast trunk line, which would before long allow a traveller to get in a carriage at Cape Town and go by way of Caledon, Swellendam, Oudtshoorn, Somerset East, King William’s Town, Butterworth, Umtata and Kokstad to Pietermaritzburg and Durban. What he would like to do was to point out some of the possibilities. There had been such a great demand for information that it was only right to the House that he should give it. (Hear, hear.) This line had already been before the Cape Parliament in 1906, but had been postponed through lack of funds. They had a population in the Transkei of a million. A great many of the natives there went up north to work on the mines, and they were bound to use this railway. Proceeding, the hon. member gave statistics showing the great wealth of the Transkeian Territories in cattle, sheep, goats, and horses, wool and mealies. In 1910, in three months the passenger traffic on the Amabele-Butterworth line produced £5,128, and the goods traffic for the same period £8,450, and the traffic since then had increased greatly. A very carefully drawn up estimate put the revenue of the new line at £60,000. The distance from Butterworth to Umtata was 102 miles, of which 26 miles had been constructed. He had not the least doubt that the estimated receipts would be exceeded. Transport riders would never be able to compete with the railways, and it would be a benefit to the Transkei to have a railway instead of ox-wagon transport. The demand, however, for transport from the railway to distant points would be enough to keep the transport riders employed. In conclusion, Mr. Schreiner expressed the belief that the line would be of great benefit, and the hope that the Cape and Natal Railway systems would soon be linked up.

said he would like to confirm what the hon. member for Tembuland had said in regard to the necessity of an extension from Idutywa to Umtata. The line would go through the finest part of South Africa, so far as he knew. The country was densely populated, and had any amount of stock and, grain, which should supply a lot of traffic for the railway.

replied, but his remarks were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said he would like strongly to support what had been said by the hon. member for Griqualand. He (Mr. Fawcus) thought Government was making a great mistake in taking two bites at a cherry. If the Minister would take his courage in both hands and run a line right through to Natal it would be a paying one. If there was one district in South Africa in which it would pay to build a railway it was East Griqualand. Mr. Fawcus complained that no sections were given of the line, and hoped that a stop would be put to useless waste of printing plans which were of no value, and suggested that instead large maps, showing the proposed line, should be displayed in the lobby.

The item was agreed to.

said that, if anyone looked to the western side of the main line, running up to Vryburg in the North, he would see practically a blank, with the exception of the one extension to Prieska. On the eastern side there was a network of railways, and, looking at this particular section now before the House, they would see that it was to run between two other railways. No portion of the district which was to be supplied by this railway was at the present time practically more than twenty miles from a railway. It seemed to him to be grossly unfair that parts of the country already well supplied with railways should have a further rail way provided for them, while other parts of the country, which had a great claim to railways, should be neglected. In the course of their report, the Board said: “By such extension the districts served will enjoy direct through connection for the transport of their produce south to Kimberley and north to Mafeking and beyond, and north to Johannesburg and other consuming centres. In addition to this, the line will prove of much value in establishing a suitable connection with the North-west Cape Province, when railway communication with Kuruman and Western Cape districts is established, and particularly so if the junction with Kuruman at Pudimoe Siding is decided upon. Such a point of junction would also possess the merits of being the shortest route north, and at the same time being practically the nearest point of junction of the existing main line with Kuruman, and consequently the shortest mileage of new line to construct.” Proceeding, he said that, if they brought Kuruman within a shorter distance of Johannesburg and that part, they would take it a great deal further away from Kimberley than would a line through Barkly West. To his mind, to say that this was “the shortest mileage of new line to construct,” was a misleading way of putting it before the House. It was quite clear that if the House passed this line, it would be accepting the recommendation as the future extension of the line from Kuruman to Kimberley. That, he held, was an absolutely wrong method of approaching Kuruman. The shortest route was not the developing route. The Minister had had a number of deputations from all parts, but he now wanted to pin Kuruman down to a route which nobody asked for. One felt, of course, that at last the claim of that North-western portion to railways had been recognised, but he did feel that, if the House passed the Schweizer-Renecke line, it would not be forwarding the interests of that part. He felt bound to protest against a line which did not seem to be fairly needed, considering the way in which other parts of the country had been neglected. He did feel that he could not let this go through without a protest against a policy which, he felt, was unfair—a policy of giving to those who had, and not regarding the places which could fairly be developed. Here they were asked to vote money for a line which, admittedly, was not going to pay; while the line he had suggested to Barkly West was certain to pay.

said that he had made some inquiries about this line, and all he could find was that it would pass through a thinly-inhabited part of the country, and a great part of the land was owned by speculators, who were waiting for a rise. As far as he could make out—and he wanted the Minister to correct him if he was wrong—a considerable portion of this line was in direct opposition to the Act of Union, in that the Railway Board had not given its approval or made any report upon a great portion of this line. He had gone through the report.

said that the Board’s report appeared on page 4 of their report on proposed new lines of railway.

I find I had not got the proper book. Proceeding, he said that this line would run between two railways already constructed at no considerable distance, and the population did not warrant it. Nothing seemed to warrant the construction of this line so far as he could see, and when other parts of the country were crying out for railways why should they build a section like this He, as at present advised, should be obliged to vote against this proposal.

said he noticed that in the map there were a number of alternate lines, but he had failed to find in the report the reason why the Board or the Minister had decided upon this particular route. He took it that route C had been decided upon. When he turned to the report he found that the Board said that the reason for deciding upon this route was that it would follow the Harts River, but when they turned to the map they found that the route which had been proposed ran right away from the Harts River. Route D did follow the Harts River, and there was only a difference between the two routes of one mile. He maintained that the committee ought to have some information from the responsible body as to why these two routes were placed before them, and why C had been selected in preference to any other route. The proper market for any produce raised in that part of the country was Kimberley, and it would be a great advantage to have a connection with the main line as near Kimberley as possible, but the proposed line (C) was much further away from Kimberley than D, and still further away than E. If there was no difference in the cost of these two lines, he would strongly urge the committee to decide upon D, which went through better country close to the Harts River, and connected with the main line at a nearer point than the other route. Proceeding, he said that on the Barkly West side there were thousands upon thousands of people congregated, and no railway communication at all. It had been shown clearly that the line from Kimberley to Barkly West would return a profit straight away, but that had been shelved in preference to another line to the westward, for which there was no possible excuse, except in the hope that something would come in the future. He was not in a position to give a definite vote, and he wanted to know what was the advantage of giving them six alternate routes, and then to be told that the Minister had decided upon one, and they did not know any particulars about the others. In his opinion it would strengthen the hands of the Board and the Minister if they were in a position to say that the route (a), say, would be a great advantage, but it would cost more money; but they had no such particulars before them, and he hoped that in future, when alternate routes were laid before the House they would have particulars of the cost of the routes. He would not be doing his duty if he did not raise his protest against spending such a large sum of money on that line, when there were other routes which were very much better, and he could not understand why the hon. Minister and the Board had decided upon a route, which, in his opinion, was the most unlikely of the lot.

wanted to know what that particular railway was for at all? He would like to know whether precedence in the matter of railway extension to the west in a northern advance had received the consideration of the Government; and to what extent was it a fact, as had been suggested, that a great deal of country served by the proposed route was held by land companies and so on for speculative purposes. He asked what were the reasons which caused them to select that particular district as the project to be submitted for the Board’s report.

held that new parts of the country should be opened up, but before that was done, thickly populated areas which were already developed should be provided with railways. He could not understand why the Minister proposed to build this line, in spite of the fact that the engineers had told him that this part of the country was as yet undeveloped, and would not pay for years. Why should they build unpaying lines in one part of the country while they could build lines which would pay well in other parts? He felt so strongly on the matter that he felt inclined to move the deletion of this line altogether. He could not vote for the line, and thought the Government would be wise to take it out of the railway programme.

expressed his astonishment at the remarks of some hon. members who had never been in that part of the country. The fact of the matter was that people in that part of the country were so far away from the markets that they could not produce anything. What wonder, then, that they were not developed? They were hundreds of miles away from the railway. A better connection with the main line was required, but Schweizer Reneke must not be excluded. The Cape was getting much more than the Transvaal. He did not know where those railways were which hon. members had referred to. It seemed to him that some hon. members were jealous.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said it was difficult to find out what principle had been followed in regard to the selection of routes for these lines, and the Ministry had only itself to blame if suspicion attached to some of these lines. When this line was constructed it would land the country into an annual loss of £11,000, and would run over a part of the country which was fairly well served at the present time. The districts of Douglas, Barkly West and Kuruman had better claims for railways than that part of the country through which this line would run. He agreed with his hon. friend the member for Pretoria, East, that the Board was knee haltered, and it was never intended by the Convention that it should work in the way it was doing. The Board was simply asked to report on lines that were laid before it. They had no opportunity of saying that other lines were more necessary. If a free hand were given the Board—

You would have to alter the law.

If the law was administered as it should be administered, and as the country wished it to be administered, there would be a different state of affairs. Continuing, he said he wanted to know the reasons why this particular line had been selected? He would vote against it if it went to a division.

said that the view which the Minister of Justice took was against the law.

made a remark which was inaudible.

said he could see nothing in the law to prevent the Board reporting upon which lines were the most necessary. He would call the committee’s attention to the fact that as the arrangement existed at present there was no security to this House that a line that was put on the paper was not a proposal which the Government had made actuated by purely political motives. When they looked at other parts of the Transvaal, where lines were more urgently required, they did want more information. He wanted an answer to the question that had been put regarding the ownership of the land. Were there any predominant interests there? Were there any corporations holding large blocks of land?

referred to original proposals in the Transvaal Parliament, said that this proposed extension was then recommended by him, and was the best. With regard to the ownership of land, he had inquired into it, and he had found that most of the farms on the route that he then proposed were held by companies. One could hardly say that large interests were held in the farms on this route.

In this direction there were some farms held by companies, but not to any great extent. This was a magnificent valley, and it should be developed, and while, if they ran a railway, ending somewhere in the country, they could not expect it to do much, they would expect it to do a great deal better if they joined it up with another line. Proceeding, the hon. member said that while Rhodesia had been suffering from drought, that part of the country did a great traffic in mealies with Rhodesia, but they had to send them up there by a very circuitous route. By the construction of this line they were not only doing good to the line, but they were developing that part of the country. The traffic on the Fourteen Streams route was very heavy, and this line very materially assisted in relieving it. With regard to the population, he would say that it was quite evident that the population of the western district had very greatly increased during the last few years, as was evident by the fact that a few new constituencies had to be cut away from the old ones.

said the question which this House had to consider was which line would be most beneficial to the Union. So far as he knew, the country through which this line was to go was good country, and the line might be a payable one. But that did not touch the argument raised. His point was that they had no information before them which would justify them to vote such a large amount of money. He contended that the Government was not carrying out the intentions of the Act of Union. The object of that Act was clearly to remove the policy of railway construction from any political influences, and they were not doing that under the existing system. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Railways and Harbours last year promised in this House that they would have an Act introduced into this House defining the duties and powers of the Railway Board.

The hon. member must confine himself to the item under discussion.

went on to say that the Minister had made certain remarks about the law. He (Sir L. Phillips) contended that if such a Bill had been introduced to define the duties and powers of the Railway Board, they would not have had all these difficulties. There was nothing in the South Africa Act to prevent the introduction of such a measure, and there was nothing in the Act to prevent the Board from taking the initiative in preparing routes of railway lines, although the Minister stated that this was against the Act. The responsibility, after all, would still rest with the Government. If the Board recommended a number of lines, the Government could still select any of the suggested routes. As the matter stood at present, however, it seemed to him that, so far as Parliament was concerned, the Railway Board need not exist at all. (Opposition cheers.) The Railway Board at present did the behest of the Government, which usurped the powers of that Board. There was nothing in the Act of Union giving the Minister the right of the casting vote on that Board. Therefore he held that in the circumstances the South Africa Act was being violated. The discussion they were having on the railway, or on any other railway line for that matter, was practically useless, because the Government could, and would, carry any line. Whether this was the most advantageous line or not he would not say. He had no doubt that the country through which it would run was capable of great development, and the time would undoubtedly come when this line would produce a profit, but whether it was the line which would give an immediate profit or not was a matter which he was not prepared to go into. (Hear, hear.)

regretted the manner in which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had spoken. As regarded the constitutional point raised he would leave that to his colleague to deal with, but in regard to the other part of the hon. member’s remarks he thought it was unjustifiable to attribute wrong motives and to make remarks that these lines were political lines. What reason was there to build political lines? If hon. members wished to criticise let them do so by all means, but let them do so in a worthy and dignified manner, and not always try to attribute motives where there were no such motives. Of course, General Botha continued, we must occasionally look after the interior—(laughter)—and not only at the Cape, and therefore the hon. member must not blame us if we have an ambition to help the people of the interior as much as the people at the coast. (Ministerial cheers.) There were no people who were looked after and attended to better than the people at the coast. And even here in the Cape some lines were built which did not always pay. (Ministerial cheers.) What they looked at in the first place was the development of the country. The first thing the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, wished to know was whether a line was going to pay. How many lines had they not here in the Cape that did not pay? (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member was strongly in favour of immigration. But how could they have immigration in these circumstances? If they only built lines that paid they would never be able to develop and open up the interior. (Cheers.) Now as regarded this proposed line, he could assure hon. members that if there had not been Union that line would have been finished last year. (Ministerial cheers.) The Prime Minister proceeded to point to a statement made by the Minister of Railways of the Transvaal in the Transvaal House of Assembly before Union. In that statement, that Minister had declared that the line—this same line—would go through the most fertile part of the Transvaal. The policy of the Transvaal Government of those days, the Prime Minister continued, was to build the line right up to the Cape border, but as they did not have sufficient money for that purpose they agreed to build the line as far as they possibly could. There was not then a properly surveyed route and they had drawn a straight line on the map to the Cape border. It had never been their intention that the line should stop at Delarey. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said that he wondered whether this line would be in the interest of the country. He (the Prime Minister) had had to listen to the same argument in the Transvaal in the olden days. Had the right hon. gentleman ever been there? He had had to listen to the argument that there would be a great loss on this line, etc. Well, the line had been built to Lichtenburg, and from there to Delarey. Originally trains ran only once or twice a week—to-day, owing to the enormous traffic, they had trains running there daily. (Ministerial cheers.) They had provided a country there which, last year, when mealies were scarce, had supplied the whole of South Africa with mealies. One co-operative society alone had delivered 300,000 bags of mealies in one year, and there were other such societies. (Ministerial cheers.) He was not aware of any part of South Africa which they could develop more systematically than that part. Then there had been a great increase in the population there, as they could see from the new delimitation.

That is due to the diggers in Bloemhof.

was understood to say that that was not the case, as these diggers varied very considerably in numbers. When the delimitation of electoral districts was made a few years ago they had to take the whole area to make one constituency of 3,000 people, but at the recent delimitation they had to create a new constituency. In other words, the population had increased within a few years by 3,000 persons. Of what other place could the same be said? Certainly not of Victoria West. The diamond diggers along the river were not taken into account. They certainly numbered 10,000. So far as he was aware, there was no part in South Africa which in the last four years had increased so strongly in population. Formerly they could buy ground in the district at 5s. or 10s. per morgen, but now they had to pay £2 10s. to £3 for it. The biggest market district was Rhodesia. General Botha went on to refer to the difficulties experienced by the northern part of the Cape and the Western Transvaal getting to the markets. At present they had to send their mealies via Welverdiend and Fourteen Streams. That line would have the effect of bringing these parts into touch with the markets—(hear, hear)—and could hon. members imagine any better object which could be achieved by a railway? (Ministerial cheers.) The Krugersdorp-Zeerust line ran behind the Drakensberg, and did not help the people. He thought it was essential to help those people living in that part. He quite agreed that a line to Ladismith and other parts would be very important, but that did not in any way detract from the importance of this line. The connection with the main line would be made much shorter by taking the line to Maribogo, but then it would not go through the best part of the country. The best way was along the Harts River. The Prime Minister went on to refer to the irrigation scheme which could be made extremely beneficial, by the Vaal River being connected through a canal with the Harts River, but the actual remarks of the right hon. gentleman were not audible. In conclusion, General Botha hoped that hon. members would not, through a short-sighted policy, vote against one of the best and most essential fines proposed. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he could not allow the statement which had been made by the right hon. gentleman to pass, because he did not think it was quite in accordance with what he remembered to be the facts. At least, that was his recollection. The Chief Engineer in the Transvaal did not recommend this line. He was in favour of a different line—the line that had been referred to by the hon. member for Potchefstroom; and the programme laid before the Transvaal Parliament was that there should be a connection, it was quite true, with the Cape line, but at Maritzani, Madibi, or Mafeking. The whole discussion turned upon whether they should develop more or less north or south, or more or less east or west. When the speech was made by the then Treasurer (Mr. Hull), to which the Prime Minister had referred, he indicated very carefully something which they had not noticed. He indicated that it might be possible that the line would incline somewhat slightly south, but this line had made a dead straight bolt of 200 miles. The indication given to them was that it would go right across, practically west, and connect with the system running north to Rhodesia. There was absolutely nothing in this report to show that the Railway Commissioners approved of this line. In cross-examination before the Select Committee, he put it to the members of the Railway Board who appeared to give evidence, whether in important matters they were ever overruled by the chairman’s casting vote, and they said, “Yes, on an important matter they had been.” The right thing to do was to find out on which important matter. Perhaps the Minister would tell them. It would be much better if, instead of sitting there waiting to score, he would get up at the very beginning and take the House into his confidence, and give an explanation that everybody could understand. There was another aspect of this—of what general scheme was it a part? If the Government had got an intelligent scheme, or any sort of scheme for the development of South Africa, this must form part of it. If the Railway Board could give them a report or a sketch of what their idea of the development of South Africa was, they might have been able to connect it up with something they had dealt with on the previous evening Some time or other they would have to have a line to go through the North-western districts near the Orange River through Bechuanaland and up to some point nearer there, through Pudimoe or thereabouts. He wondered if they were being drawn into it, for, of course, that had to come off afterwards. If that was the idea why were they not told of it? They ought to vote section by section for something which was going to end in a workable whole. That line had got a bad reputation from its very beginning. He was not bamboozled by the fact that it was located in the Transvaal. Naturally, he would like to see the Transvaal developed most, but he did not want to see false development and an improper direction given to their development which would not help forward the development of South Africa. They had heard that that land was not what it should be in the lower portions. There was no report from the Railway Board to show that the Board believed in it. Only that night they had been told that it was contrary to the law for the Board to make a report on their own initiative or to make their own suggestions, but would it be contrary to the law if the Railway Board were asked to do so? If the Government felt they were on safe grounds and entirely free from political influences they would ask the Railway Board to tell the whole truth and give them the benefit of their advice. In his opinion, the principle of railway building by the Government was that they should not be a charge on the country. That was the reason why they could borrow a hundred millions for reproductive work, and it did not bear upon them because it was reproductive. Immediately they began to borrow money which was not reproductive they got an enormous burden upon their shoulders. In following the course which they were following they were going to be pulled up very sharply. There would be no more money and no more prospect of doing anything.

said he agreed with the hon. member in one thing, they should certainly have a comprehensive scheme as to how they were going to develop the country with their railways. To his mind, that was absolutely essential, and the hon. Minister would do well during the recess to consider that. But he did not find himself in agreement with the hon. member who had just spoken with regard to the line under discussion. They distinctly understood when they discussed the line in the Transvaal that it had to go through the main line, but they were undecided where. At that time the same arguments were brought forward and there were cartoons in the newspapers. Great development had taken place since the line had been made, and if they continued it along the Harts River they were going to have a good line to serve the North and Rhodesia, which would be able to serve Kimberley and the Rand at the same time. When the line was finished it would be one of the best lines they had. That railway, too, was going to help in the settlement of the poor whites. If the Government wished to tackle that question, and they would like to see them tackle it. If their irrigation scheme ran hand in hand with the railway scheme, they would have had their irrigation scheme for the same purpose on the Table that night, and he would like to have seen that. He argued that they should build lines which were going to pay. In Pretoria, North, there was a line which his constituents had advocated which the Minister had taken no notice of. That line would pay from the start. It went through the tin fields and would open up a big district. They would have liked to have seen that line in a comprehensive scheme which had been suggested.

raised a point which he thought might have escaped the attention of the hon. Minister. If they followed the map they would see that if they stopped the line at Delarey they would have country of no less than 20,000 square miles in extent, and in not a part would there be a place of over 30 miles from the railway. They could not build the whole of the railway in the coming year, and he would ask the hon. Minister whether he would agree to carry the line as far as Schweizer Reneke only. So many parts of the Transvaal required railways that they should not spend a penny on railways unless they were urgently required.

said, that after the speech which had been made by the Prime Minister, it was not necessary to dilate on the advantages of the proposed line. The speaker would merely refer to the report which had been made by the Railway Board, and said it was clear that the line formed a part of what would ultimately be an extension to Kuruman and the north-west of the Cape. In that way they would get the shortest and most direct connection.

pointed out that the railway would open up a large part of the country and districts like that of Kuruman and Hay. The line was to be commended.

said that, after the explanation of the Prime Minister, he must say that his views had changed very much. The Prime Minister had clearly shown that this was a developing line, and that there would be great development there in future. He would find it difficult, as he had intended to do, to vote against the line. If the Minister of Railways and Harbours was not too proud to take advice, he would suggest to him that in the future he should prepare some history of these lines? If they had had a history like that which the Prime Minister had given, they would have been able to see some reason for the line. He suggested also, as a hint to the Minister, that they might adopt the American plan. When tracts of country were held by large companies, a railway was built on the understanding that the railway would get a certain amount of the land. That was quite a good bargain, and might easily be followed here. Suppose that until they had an Act defining the duties and powers of the Railway Board and its relations with the Minister, he presumed the Minister had some control over the Board. He thought the Board should be made to discharge its duties in a much smarter way than it was doing at present. Nobody would spend £100 on reports furnished by the Board, and yet they were asked to spend two millions on these flimsy reports.

said the Prime Minister had referred to the irrigable work on the Vaal River in the valley of the Harts. The hon. member for Pretoria North made reference to the same scheme. It might be that his map might be slightly wrong, because he found that most of the tributaries ran down southwards, but, perhaps, the Prime Minister knew of some scheme whereby the waters ran upwards. (Laughter.) The main scheme was fully investigated by the late Director of Irrigation. The proposal was to construct a weir somewhere about Christiana, which would have thrown the water back and irrigated about 100,000 acres of the ground in the Cape Province, and some on the Transvaal and Free State sides. But it was in the valley of the dry Harts that this water would have gone. It was found that such a scheme would only be necessary if there was a large tract of country to be irrigated, and it was found that most of the ground was not suitable for irrigation, and the Director considered that there were better places than that on which to spend money on irrigation, and that he did not think that the expenditure was justified there. He did not say that the land could not be used for this purpose, but he said it would be a considerable period that would have to elapse. If these irrigation possibilities existed, surely the least that the Government could do was to put the House in possession of the information. But they did not know anything about these possibilities, though they were asked to vote this large sum of money for this line. It was proposed that the line should run down the valley of the Harts River to some extent. Then again they were told that this portion of the scheme was eventually going to link up with Kuruman. Surely they ought to have some facts laid before them as to what scheme was being prepared for linking the line up with Kuruman? It was not fair to ask the House to vote for this without giving them the fullest information. It was fully certain that if this information was given, and if it was felt that these lines were justified, those members who had not got railways would be able to go back to their constituents and say why these lines were preferred, rather than to go back with the information that the Government were making these lines for political considerations.

said it was very clear the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was not acquainted with the conditions of the district through which the proposed line would run. If they looked at the figures given dealing with the mealie production of last year they would see how much that district was producing. It did not depend upon irrigation alone. They had learned the value of dry farming there in the development of the country. The hon. member for Potchefstroom, as chairman of the dry lands farmers’ congress, would prove the suitability of the district for this purpose. Ground which formerly cost 10s. per morgen now realised from £5 to £4. The hon. member for Cape Town should not try and make political capital out of this question. They should look at it from the point of view of South Africa.

said he was pleased to hear that the Hartz River irrigation scheme was one that the Government was going to take up in a short time, but this was one of the reasons why the railway should not be built to Pudimoe, because it was not far enough south to catch the irrigation area. He hoped the Government would consider how they really were going to reach Kuruman. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said when he pointed out the enormous development that had gone on in this district as the result of the railway that had been built, but he thought it only fair that some other districts should have a chance of getting railways. It was grossly unfair to put the whole of the money into Eastern lines and absolutely neglect the Western side of the main line.

said that farmers half way between Vryburg and Bloemhof would only be 36 miles from the railway, and he could not see the use of the line. Another line there could only be justified if it were expected to be immediately profitable; but that was not the case.

Had it not been for the explanation given by the Prime Minister as to the possibilities of irrigation in the area in question, he would not have been inclined to give any support to this line. The Belmont-Douglas line was far more necessary than the one now before them.

said the hon. members for Barkly West and Fort Beaufort were only thinking of one irrigation plan, namely, that at Kromellenboog. Did not those hon. members know that in the provisional survey of the engineer, Strange, three other schemes were proposed higher up the Vaal River, namely, at Coal Mine Drift, at Parijs, and on the Klip River, which would serve the interests of irrigation along the Hartz River Valley?

said that there was an irrigation scheme, not in the air, but constructed and carried out, in which the Government had such a great faith that the other day they bought a large tract of country for the purpose of irrigating it. It was in the vicinity of Douglas. Some years ago the Cape Parliament passed an Act for the construction of the line from Belmont to Douglas. That Act was still on the Statute-book. He thought it would be much better to devote this money towards the construction of that line.

said that, if the suggestion of his hon. friend the member for Yeoville were adopted, the middle point of this line would not be more than 16 miles either from Schweizer Renecke or from Pudimoe. He thought there was no need to build 52 miles of railway in a district placed as that was at the present time, when there were districts where such a line was much needed. He thought it would be much wiser on the part of the Minister to take the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville, and construct 100 miles of railway in East Griqualand.

said he was not going to enlarge upon the claims of this part of the country on the attention of the House. The truth of the matter was, that that part of the country was excellent country for development. It was very well populated from a farming point of view. He wanted to say, in reply to the hon. member for Hopetown and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, that there was no doubt that the lines they referred to were lines that deserved consideration; but he did not think his hon. friend (Mr. Schoeman) could complain that his district—no doubt a rich district, and one of the best districts in the country—had been neglected in the matter of railway development in the past. The point had been raised by the hon. member for Barkly as to why route C was adopted, instead of route D. The reason for that was that the turning of the proposed line to the western boundary of the Transvaal forward, was because of the desire to develop the Harts River Valley. The choice of route C, vice D, was mainly that, if they took the lower route, they would run their railway over a large part of the western boundary of the Transvaal, and carry it through native locations; whereas, if they took the upper route, going a little way from the river bed, they would go through a portion of the country which was entirely inhabited by European farmers. There were a great number of native locations in the part of the country near Taungs. In regard to the ownership of the land, no doubt there were speculators there, as there were everywhere, but not more so there, as far as he understood, than anywhere else.

In regard to the question of the Board’s powers, he was not going to discuss this matter on every line that came before the House; but he would say this, in reply to the hon. member for Victoria West, that this question of the Board’s reports was one that one had to be careful about. If he started to interfere with the reports of these gentlemen the next thing would be that he would be criticised in Parliament for interfering with the powers of the Board. The Railway Board was there to report upon any alternative lines. There was nothing to prevent them from doing so. Undoubtedly as to the Constitution, for good or evil, there was no question about it, that the effect, not merely a Ministerial interpretation of the Constitution, was that the Board was not supposed to initiate schemes of railway construction. It might be unfortunate, he did not say so—far from it—but the Board by the Constitution was clearly a body only to report upon proposals made by the Government, but not to initiate schemes of railway construction, but he said that when a particular scheme was submitted by the Government to the Board it was open to the Board to make any report upon that scheme that it thought fit. He had always been ready to consider, and consider with great respect, any suggestions that the Board made, but he thought there was an element of danger in suggesting that the Board should interfere too much with the form and manner of the recommendations made by the Board to the Government.

said that the Minister had stated that he did not propose to interfere with the Board, and dictate the form of their reports. Nobody wanted him to do that. The present position was that he had got a right to do it. They had assumed the right by a casting vote, so that he could at any time outvote the majority of the Commissioners, if he got one with him. It was not a question of law. They had always endeavoured to get the Government to understand this, that they did not want the Board to propose anything to Parliament, but what they did feel was that the Government had got an absolutely perfect right to ask the Board to give them a full report of the whole facts of the case. These men had exceptional opportunities of knowing the country generally from their point of view. Proceeding, he said that there was no law standing in the way, it was only the Minister acting on behalf of the Government which prevented the Railway Board from making a report to the Government which would reveal the whole of the facts. Until they got such a report on these lines which had been shown by hon. members to be payable lines they should never come before the House. The only way in which they could get to know the whole problem was by the advice of those men to whom they were paying £20,000 a year, and yet the Government would not allow that advice to come before Parliament. The information might be awkward, and the Government did not want it. They wanted to have the right to select according to their political exigencies. The constituencies of those hon. members who had complained would not get their chances until it was the sweet will of the Government to put them forward in their turn. As one hon. member said the other night, he was going to vote for them as they came along, so as to get them out of the way, so that his more important scheme, which was justifiable, would get its turn. He wanted to ask the Minister was that one of these schemes which he said were unanimously approved by the whole Board?

I do not think that is a fair question to ask. The Board had sent its report to Parliament and he did not propose to give the information as to how individual members voted.

admitted there was something in the hon. Minister’s reply. He was entitled to give a reason why he had asked the question. In the committee before which the Railway Board had appeared he had asked them how they arrived at the casting vote. Was it not possible for the chairman by the exercise of that casting vote to convert the minority into a majority? They admitted that it was possible. He asked them if it had been done on any important question, and they admitted that it had. He had only asked the Minister to say whether that scheme was one of those things which was unanimously approved by the Board. He wanted to know whether that was the instance referred to. He maintained that he was entitled to ask the question, and get a courteous answer. Three expert Commissioners were appointed. These three travelled through the country and examined those things. The Minister did not examine them. He did not know whether the hon. Minister examined that particular route, but in any case he was not the person who was qualified professionally and by experience to advise them, and he was not expected to report. If the minority had been converted into a majority in that way that was not the report of the Board.

asked if the hon. Minister agreed to answer a question.

said he had already indicated that it was not a proper thing to disclose what had taken place. Parliament was entitled to have the report of the Board meeting and to have the minutes.

said if ever there was justification for the carrying out of the promise that there should be a definition of the powers of the Railway Board it was in regard to that matter. From the speech of the hon. Minister himself it appeared that two experts did not approve of the line and that one did. If what had been suggested had not taken place the hon. Minister would have denied it. Two of his technical advisers might have been opposed to the line and one might have been in favour, and owing to his using his prerogative, using one vote as chairman and another as member, the House was not in possession of the information they should have before they were asked to vote on a measure of that sort. It was for that reason and for reasons of a similar character that they contended that the House had not been treated fairly.

The item was agreed to.

said it was his duty to make the Government understand that he could not vote for the line. It was not a fair proposition, when they considered the line from Ermelo to Standerton. In the year 1912 he had presented a petition to the Railway Board with hundreds of signatures, asking for a line from Ermelo to Standerton, and now the Board came forward and proposed a line which was not asked for. He had, accordingly, been much disappointed, and had gone to the Government, in order to try to effect a compromise. Against the Wakkerstroom line he had nothing to say, but hut did not like to see a good line killed. He had proposed the construction of a line from Zandspruit to Morgenzon, and also one from Ermelo to Standerton, but the Government told him there was no money for it, and yet the Government now came forward with a long line from Bethal to Volksrust. The speaker had produced arguments against that line, but the Minister had not replied to them. The line from Ermelo to Standerton formed a portion of what would speedily become a main line. He intended to vote against the proposed line, but not to divide on it, as he was not seeking notoriety. In this case, however, it was impossible for him to justify to the public the action of the Government.

said that a lot of time would be saved if the Minister would volunteer the statement at the outset in each case.

I haven’t had a chance.

If we only knew you would do so we would give way at once.

said there was admirable agricultural land in this territory. One section was in favour of a line from Standerton to Harrismith, and then to Vrede. That was examined by the Railway Board, and they came to the conclusion that as the true objective was a development of the greatest part of the country, the true plan was not to cut straight across that area, but to go right down to Zandspruit. No doubt in that way they would serve the largest number of people, and leave them a shorter distance from the railway than under the other scheme. Then it was suggested to the Board to consider the question of giving some railway facilities to Wakkerstroom, and their final report was in favour of the scheme now before the House. To give facilities to Wakkerstroom it was suggested that the line should come down to Zandspruit, and that a branch line should be built to Volksrust, but eventually the present scheme was adopted. The Board came to the conclusion that it would be better to take the railway in that direction and open up a new area of country, than if they had just gone to Zandspruit alone. There was a difference of 8 miles between the two schemes.

said anyone acquainted with the districts through which the line was proposed to go would know that it would serve an extremely useful purpose. Standerton had a number of lines, and was now envious of other districts which had no lines at all. There was a number of sheep farmers in the district which would be served who now had to rely on ox-wagon traffic, whereas a railway line would greatly benefit them. The line should eventually be extended to Zoutpansberg, the effect of which would be the development of one of the richest parts of the Union, and the bringing together of the Free State and Natal. He hoped the Prime Minister would not allow himself to be moved by the arguments of the hon. member for Standerton.

said that when the Bill was being discussed at the second reading, the hon. member for Standerton had delivered a vigorous speech. A line from Bethal to Volksrust would undoubtedly pass through a part of the country which was as good as any other district for which railway connection could be demanded. The district was suitable for all kinds of farming. The hon. member for Standerton had lost sight of one fact in his criticism, and that was that it was the object of the Government to give assistance to Wakkerstroom by means of a railway to that place. They were now proposing a line from Bethal via Amersfoort to Wakkerstroom and Volksrust. The hon. member objected to that route, and wanted it to run from Zandspruit to Amersfoort, but the hon. member ought to see that if that line were built the Ermelo-Standerton proposal would be quite impossible. But if the line proposed by the Government were constructed, the chance of the construction of the line from Ermelo to Standerton would continue to exist. That line lay in the direction of the Free State and Delagoa Bay, and it would have to be built in the interests of the development of the Free State. It was very necessary to help Wakkerstroom, and the question was whether they should build from Ermelo or from Bethal. He hoped the hon. member would see that they should accept the Government’s proposal, as any other would be a mistake. The speaker was well acquainted with Wakkerstroom, with every part, and every stream in it. The question arose whether it was desirable to have such a bend in the line, but he felt bound to leave such a question as that to their technical advisers. It was his idea to build a line from Zandspruit via Amersfoort to Bethal, and then a separate line to Wakkerstroom, but their officials had told him that it would be better for administrative purposes to build one line, and he was bound to accept that technical advice. The district between Amersfoot and Wakkerstroom was good, and it afforded very satisfactory prospects. He sympathised with the wishes of the hon. member for Standerton, being an inhabitant of Standerton himself, but if they rejected the present proposed line, the chances of the extension would become small. The line to Harrismith would also have to come. It was a good district, where a railway service was most necessary, owing to the fact that they had the mountains on the one side. Vrede had been helped already, and the speaker hoped it would not stay at that.

said that in this country it seemed that all railway lines led to Johannesburg. That was very gratifying no doubt to one who was a representative of Johannesburg, and who felt that it was a very good thing that these lines should be built so as to carry all the goods in this country to Johannesburg. In this matter, however, he had been asked to represent the inhabitants of Standerton, who had requested him to protest against this line, and he did protest against it with great goodwill, because he did not think it was a suitable line to build. The right hon. gentleman had said that the first duty of the Government was to represent the inhabitants of Wakkerstroom. He (Mr. Wyndham) denied that. He thought that they looked upon these matters altogether too much from a parochial point of view. The point to take into consideration was how these railways would fit in with the general scheme of railways throughout the Union. This railway was entirely contrary to the railway development in the Free State. What was the result? When an unhappy farmer or an unhappy individual wished to get from the south to the north he had the greatest difficulty in doing so. They must see to it that the railways did not all go in one direction. They did not want to get into the same position as they found in Cape Town, where, if one wanted to go to Port Elizabeth, it was necessary to go all the way round by De Aar. Again, this line was really only duplicating the main line. The Minister had told the members for Natal that under no circumstances would he duplicate the Natal main line for the benefit of the coal trade. Now he came with a scheme to duplicate this very same line in the interior districts. The line from Amersfoort to Wakkerstroom, a distance of 32 miles, travelled parallel to the Durban line within about 15 miles. It seemed to him that the principle they should go on was to build main lines, and build feeders at right angles to these mainlines, either by road motors or light railways. In the Transvaal they were absolutely departing from that principle.

said he rather hesitated to criticise the Transvaal lines less it should be considered that he was doing so in a Provincial spirit, but he took it that that was to be an agricultural development line, and as such it would be a very costly line, as the rolling stock would amount to £4,500 per mile, and they must allow for rolling stock, for an agricultural line, he thought that that was altogether excessive. Their borrowing powers were limited. The House would take it that they could only borrow a certain amount of money, and he thought they should decide not to exceed a certain sum when they were building lines. If they built that line for £3,000, they would be able to develop half as much country again with the remaining £1,500, and they were bringing 50 per cent. more farms under development. He was extremely disappointed with the report of the railway with regard to that matter. The Board did not tell them that that was an extremely difficult district to develop, and that it would pay all the same. An agricultural line was not going to carry heavy traffic, and why should the House vote £4,500 for a line which they should only spend £3,000 on? They were doing the country a permanent injury by passing lines of that kind with the meagre information they had before them.

said there were lines on both sides of the proposed lines and all the goods that they thought were going to be carried by that line would not be carried. The line would no sooner be made than there would be an agitation for a line across, from Amersfoort to Sandpoort. The line that they wanted made would not satisfy the district at all. There had been a change from the report of last year, and the change had been brought about at a very late date. The hon. Minister had said that what Wakkerstroom wanted was a fair claim for railway communication. That place was about 80 miles from Volksrust, and to satisfy that claim they had made the line 28 miles longer than they proposed to make it last year. From a railway point of view and traffic point of view, it was not as good a line as the first one. They pointed out the same sort of thing in connection with the line which they discussed last night.

said that the country from Amersfoort to Wakkerstroom was not as good country. The result was that people were dissatisfied, and wanted to know why the change had been made. They wanted proper reports from the Railway Board. In connection with the railway, they discussed the previous night, they should have had an irrigation report; in this case they should have had an agricultural report. The testimony of individual members was not accepted, and it was only the officials of the Administration who could give impartial testimony.

said that, at last, they had a railway that would do something in the way of development. Instead of going straight, the line had been diverted to Wakkerstroom; he wished the Minister had dealt with the North-west scheme in the same way. If the idea was that this railway should develop the country between the main line and Standerton, with the Ermelo line upon the other side, surely this railway should be kept in the middle, because if this were not done, as his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, said, they would want another railway to split the distance between. He wanted to know why this railway was going to cost £4,000 per mile, because this country was an open and flat country between Bethal and all the way down to Standerton, and even for this £4,000 per mile they were not going to get a 60-lb. rail, hut only a 45-lb. What was the necessity for spending £105 per mile on stations? Surely there must be something wrong there. Then they found that the amount for fencing was going to cost only £15 less per mile than the amount for stations. They were only going to run one train per day over this line, and probably it would be run in daylight, therefore the driver could easily see if there was a cow on the line, and be able to pull up in time. The proper thing to do was to put this amount for fencing into steel rails. What they ought to do was to have a good, sound road bed. That was the foundation of safety, and the foundation of cheap working expenses.

said he noticed that instructions were given by the Railway Commissioners on the 28th February, for an inspection to be made by Mr. Rees, Resident Engineer, for a projected line from Volksrust, via Wakkerstroom, to Amersfoort. The engineer’s report was dated March 10th, so that here they had a case in which an engineer after 10 days’ notice, produced a report on a line on which it was proposed to expend £4,500 a mile. He thought the matter should be referred back to the Board for further consideration, and he would move that the Government be requested to refer this matter back to the Board for further consideration. They in that House were in favour of developing railways, but not in such a way that they would damage future development.

said that the hon. member could not move that the proposal be referred back, but he could move that the item should stand over.

said he would move that the item stand over, with an understanding that the Minister be requested to get from the Railway Board a further report on this line.

said that, this was evidently one of the motor car inspections of railways. All the way from Charlestown to Wakkerstroom the line followed the main road. These main road railways had been a curse to railway development in South Africa. He hoped the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, would be adopted.

said it was not right to vote over £200,000 for a line which had only been suggested when the session started and had only occupied 10 days in the survey.

said hon. members knew that the project, with the exception of a distance of 22 miles, had been surveyed and brought before the House last year. The only part which had taken ten days was a distance of 22 miles between Wakkerstroom and Amersfoort. Surely that was sufficient time for a technical person, and he hoped in the circumstances that it would not be considered necessary to refer this back to the Board.

said his right hon. friend was head of the Government and was responsible for the Government. That 32 miles of that railway had apparently been of so much importance that within ten days they had had a survey. What had occurred to make the Government so anxious? The least the House might expect was a detailed survey. He asked the Minister if all the committee had before it was a flying survey made in February? It was not fair to the House or the country. The majority might carry it, but the people would show what they thought about it in the future. It was unfair to the committee; he supposed they could do nothing but protest.

said the Minister must admit that it was a very flying survey. He suggested to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, that an amendment might be made to the first section of the Bill to the effect that this line should be authorised by a special resolution of Parliament.

said he did not think the course suggested should be pursued. What he thought was that the Minister should not tie his hands by deleting the words “vicinity of Morgenzon, Amersfoort, and.”

said he would like to know the effect of such an amendment on the length of the line and the expenditure.

said he would like to move as he had suggested.

said he must have exact details before he could accept such an amendment.

contended that the engineer had not had sufficient time to do the survey properly. He quoted from a report to prove his contention. The engineer had only had four days to make this survey.

said that, for the purpose of giving the Minister an opportunity of going into this, he would move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. He (Sir Thomas) wanted to know more of this flying survey, because there were lines of a more pressing character that needed attention.

said that no detailed survey had been made. There was not a detailed survey made in any case. It was said that this was a flying survey; that was not correct. They had done in this case what they had done in every individual case of the lines submitted to the House, and what was done upon all construction Bills, namely, an examination and inspection of the route. They never made a detailed survey unless they had got Parliamentary sanction. In this case the Commissioners themselves went over the ground last year. The line from Bethal to Amersfoort remained the same. The Commissioners went on to the spot and examined the thing carefully and made up their minds as to the general direction of the railway. They then instructed their engineer to see that an inspection was made, and for a section of 32 miles the engineer had ten days.

No, he had four days.

Well, he could do it in four days. Proceeding, he said it was well-known that they could not get far from the main road there owing to the nature of the country. There were blocks of mountains there. As to the estimate of £4,500 per mile, no measure had ever been brought before Parliament in which agricultural lines were proposed to be built so cheaply as in this Bill. He was assured by the Commissioners that it was unnecessary to refer the matter back.

said that the Barkly Bridge-Alexandria line cost £2,600 per mile, and it was on the broad gauge and a farmers’ line.

That was the exception I had in my mind. I was speaking of lines on a large scale. In the one case you have flat country, and in the other mountainous country.

said, if they were going to spend £4,500 a mile on agricultural railways, they were going to be blocked in the matter of development. He wanted it referred back for further consideration, and he would move that.

On motion to postpone consideration of the item being put,

declared it negatived.

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

Ayes—18.

Andrews, William Henry

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

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

Noes—43.

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodoras Muller

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

The item was agreed to.

thought it would be better if some more careful and detailed inspection were made before railway schemes were submitted to Parliament.

said that he was surprised at the statement made by the Minister of Railways that only flying surveys were made. He remembered that, in the case of a similar line to Volksrust, a detailed survey was submitted to Parliament.

I never said a flying survey. Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Monday.