Report of the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Union of South Africa for 1911.

Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours Fund, year ending 31st March, 1914.

These Estimates were referred to Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

Estimates of the Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works of the South African Railways and Harbours, year ending 31st March, 1914.

Correspondence relating to the immigration of natives residing in Portuguese Mozambique Territories situated to the North of Latitude 22 degrees South.

stated that the Select Committee on Public Accounts had requested the Commissioner of the South African police to submit an estimate of the additional cost to the Police Department consequent upon the maintenance of convicted prisoners prior to their lodgment in concentration gaols, but that the estimate was received by the Clerk of the House after the Committee had agreed upon its final report, and Mr. Speaker accordingly laid the paper upon the Table for the information of members.

moved, that the resolutions adopted by the House on the 3rd instant on the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on proposed increase of Excise and Customs Duties, as printed on pages 1001-2 of the Votes and Proceedings, be referred to Committee of the Whole House on the Excise and Customs Tariffs Amendment Bill.

Agreed to.

intimated that the “Black Peril ” Commission’s report would be laid on the Table to-morrow.

made an announcement with reference to the introduction of tropical natives to the mines. He mentioned that an announcement was recently made by the Government in respect of the stoppage of recruiting. The matter was immediately given attention, and the Governor-General despatched a communication to the Governor of the Mozambique Province, in the following terms: “At the request of my Ministers, I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that, in consequence of the exceedingly high rate of mortality from disease at present prevailing on the Witwatersrand amongst natives recruited in territories situate north of latitude 22 deg. south, my Ministers have decided to prohibit the further introduction of such natives within the boundaries of the Union of South Africa, and that they would be glad if Your Excellency would be pleased, in the interests of humanity, to co-operate with them, by prohibiting the recruiting of such natives in the Province of Mozambique for labour within the Union.” Then (the Minister mentioned) followed the particulars, showing the percentage of mortality. A despatch had been received from the Governor-General of Mozambique acknowledging the letter of May 13, in the following terms:

“I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency’s letter of May 13, with reference to the prohibition in future of the introduction into the territories of the South African Union of natives coming from the districts to the north of the parallel of 22 deg. of latitude. I welcome a measure so beneficial to the native peoples of this Province, and, in the name of the Portuguese Government, I thank Your Excellency for its adoption. Co-operating with Your Excellency’s Government, I will issue directions to prohibit the emigration of such natives to other territories of the South African Union. Instructions will be given to the Curator of Portuguese Natives at Johannesburg to furnish to the authorities of your Government all the information which he collects, and to co-operate with them in all that relates to the fiscal control of the clandestine immigration of Portuguese natives from the districts north of the parallel of 22 deg. latitude, which, in spite of the measures adopted, may possibly take place. I should be much obliged, and this is my request to Your Excellency, if these natives, when found as clandestine immigrants in the territories of the South African Union, should be handed over to the Portuguese frontier authorities at Rosane Garcia, in order that, upon repatriation to their districts of origin, they might there undergo the proper penalties which may be imposed upon them.”

further stated that he had been informed that an official “Gazette” had been issued by the Governor-General of Mozambique, giving effect to the prohibition of any such natives.

Does the Minister know what the penalties are?

was understood to reply in the negative.

moved that this House resolves, in terms of section 6 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, that it is in the public interest that the Controller and Auditor-General, Mr. Walter Edwin Gurney, be retained in that office for a period of two years after he shall have attained the age prescribed for his retirement from office. He said that the Auditor-General, Mr. Gurney, would attain the age of 60 years next December, and the Government thought it to the public interest that Mr. Gurney’s services should be secured beyond the age of 60 years, for which provision was made in the section of the Act referred to. He thought it was unnecessary for him to refer to the great ability and zeal with which Mr. Gurney had for a long period of years discharged the duties of Auditor-General. (Hear, hear.) He was in full possession of all his powers, and the Government thought it would be greatly in the interests of the country that he should continue for some years longer to discharge those duties. (Hear, hear.) There would be a considerable saving to the country. If Mr. Gurney retired he was entitled to a pension of over £1,100, and, of course, as long as he remained in the service that pension would be saved to the country.

seconded the motion.

supported the motion.

said that they on that side thoroughly endorsed what the Minister had said in respect of the Auditor-General, but, now that this definite period was fixed, he hoped the Minister would keep his eyes open with regard to a successor, as the office was one that was extremely difficult to fill.

said he supposed that, at the expiration of that period of time, if Mr. Gurney’s health and abilities were such as they were at present, the House could still further extend the period.

That as so.

The motion was agreed to.

Before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, I would like to call the attention of the House to certain amendments in the First Schedule of the Administration of Estates Bill, recommended by the Select Committee on the Bill, viz.:

1. (1) the insertion—(a) on page 66, of Ordinance No. 10 of 1864 (Kaffrarian Native Estates), the major portion of which deals with the succession rights of Kafirs, Fingoes and Tambookies, their matrimonial rights and relations and the legitimacy of their offspring; (b) on the same page, of Act No. 23 of 1874 (The Succession Act, 1874), which takes away the right to claim the legitimate portion and gives persons the right to disinherit their children or other relatives without assigning any cause; (c) on page 68, of sections 19, 20 and 22 to 25 of Act No. 25 of 1894 i(The Glen Grey Act, 1894). Section twenty-four prescribes that the law of succession, in the case of allotments and other immovable property belonging to registered holders under the Act, shall be according to the rule of primageniture by male persons to be called heirs and to be determined by a prescribed table, and section twenty-five makes it lawful for a registered holder, in certain circumstances, to disinherit his heir; (d) on page 70, of chapter LVI of Orange Free State Law Book (The Liquidation of the Baralong Estates) which deals with the rights of succession of natives who at one time belonged to the Baralong Territory; and
2. (2) The amendment on page 68, to omit in the fourth column of the item “Transvaal Proclamation No. 28 of 1902 (The Administration of Estates Proclamation, 1902),” sections one hundred and twenty-six to one hundred and twenty-nine which deal with the rights of succession.

Clause 115 and now clause 116 of the Bill it is true deal with the rights of beneficiaries under mutual wills made by persons married in community of property and with the removal of restrictions on immovable property imposed by deed or will, respectively, but the connection, if any, between the subject-matter of clause one hundred and fifteen and the amendments referred to is extremely remote. The proposed amendments deal with important principles of succession rights and are in my opinion altogether foreign to the import and general scope of the Bill, the main object of which is to deal with the administration of estates. I must, therefore, rule them out of order.

Two further amendments remain to be dealt with, viz.: on page 68, the proposed insertion of section sixteen (c) of Act No. 41 of 1895 (The British Bechuanaland Annexation Act, 1895) which deals with the jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases of native Chiefs in British Bechuanaland; and, on the same page, the proposed amendment—to part of which I have already referred—to omit sections one hundred and thirty to one hundred and thirty-two from the fourth column of the item “Transvaal Proclamation No. 28 of 1902 (The Administration of Estates Proclamation, 1902),” which deal with the abolition of certain tacit hypothecations. These two amendments are in no sense germane to the subject-matter of the Bill and are, therefore, also ruled out of order.

said he understood that Mr. Speaker’s ruling referred to the first schedule to the Bill and certain laws which were to be repealed, but did not refer to the main Bill.

said that there was no reference to the Bill itself. It was the amendments made by the Select Committee.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

in reply to Mr. J. W. Jagger (Cape Town, Central), said that the Master had the power to open closed or sealed documents.

I don’ t want it opened. I want to keep it closed until the widow dies.

That is impossible. If he or she dies, the estate must be administered.

said he would like to refer to a case. A gentleman died in this city and left a will. They did not know who the beneficiaries were, and he understood that a certain portion could not be opened until the widow died. The gentleman who made the will had been dead twenty years.

said that if there was only one will, it could not be kept closed till the death of the widow. Of course, if there were two wills, it was a different matter.

Is that the law now?

Yes.

Is it provided for here?

Yes.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 31, Letters of administration,

asked whether a man could nominate his second wife as executrix.

moved the following new sub-section: “(4) Letters of administration may he issued to a woman but shall not, without the consent in writing of her husband, be granted to a woman married in community of property, or to a woman married out of community of property when the marital power of the husband is not excluded.”

The sub-section and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 39, Security for due administration,

moved that after “surviving spouse,” in sub-section (a), the words “or son-in-law ” be inserted.

said ample provision was made for sons-in-law in sub-section (c).

supported the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 52,

In reply to Mr. J. W. JAGGER (Cape Town, Central),

said the executor could apply to the Court for leave to sell.

On clause 56, Prohibition of re-marriage of surviving spouse till minors’ portions are secured,

moved to add the following new sub-section (5): “Nothing in this section shall apply to the widow or widower of a person who died testate prior to the commencement of this Act and the administration of whose estate is governed by the law in force in the Province of Natal immediately prior to such commencement. ”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 75,

To add at the end of the clause “The Master shall allow the reasonable costs of finding security to be charged out of the estate unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”

said the amendment was superfluous.

agreed with the last speaker.

supported the amendment, and said it was a necessary one.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 83,

In line 66, after “property,” to insert “or to a woman married out of community of property when the marital power of the husband is not included.”

accepted the amendment.

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 116, Power of the Court in regard to entailed estates, which read as follows: (1) If any person interested in any immovable property which is subject to any restriction imposed by deed or will desire to have such restriction removed or modified on the ground that the removal or modification will be to the advantage of the persons, born or unborn, certain or uncertain, who are or will be entitled to such property or the income thereof under such deed or will, or to the advantage of the public generally, such person may make application to the Court for the removal or modification of any such restriction. (2) Upon any such application the Court may remove or modify any such restriction or make any other or further order which to the Court shall seem just. (3) In the hearing and determination of any such application the Court shall consist of not less than three judges.

On the motion of Mr. C. J. KRIGE (Caledon),

put the new clause proposed by the Select Committee.

said he could not agree with the new principle laid down in this clause. At present only Parliament could bring about an alteration in an entail, but this clause allowed the High Courts to bring about such an alteration. A clause of this kind required very careful consideration. In all the years of self-government only one case of this kind, namely, the case of Breda in the matter of Oranjezicht, had been brought before Parliament. He did not think the prevailing state of affairs warranted this alteration. But the new clause introduced a new principle. Hitherto a will had always been regarded as something holy. But now the Court was to be empowered, on request, to alter the conditions of a will. If a farm were left to a child without the right to sell it was made possible in the present clause for the child to go to Court and get power to sell the farm to the detriment of his heirs. He could not support the new clause.

said he thought it was always a dangerous thing to interfere with wills If they were going to pass this clause he thought they might go a step further and abolish wills altogether. He should vote against the clause.

said the clause did not aim at a bequest being easily changed, because provision was made in the clause for a court of three judges. It was, however, ridiculous to leave the position as it was Under present conditions the ground bequeathed to people became so small that it was not even worth the costs of transfer. Much poverty had arisen in consequence, as appeared from the report of the Select Committee and extending the field of white labour. The fact that so few matters had been brought before Parliament was simply due to the costs involved by such cases. The clause was quite safe. A Select Committee had gone into the question and obtained evidence from all the incorporated law societies, judges, masters, etc, and with the exception of the Law Society at the Cape, all were in favour of the clause.

also objected to the clause, and said he hoped the Committee would reject it. The hon. member for Rustenburg said they might safely leave the matter to the judgment of three judges, but the speaker wanted to know what right three judges had to upset the terms of a man’s will. The hon. member also said that a man might make a will which was against the interests of his heirs, but the speaker would ask in reply what right had they to dictate to a man how he should draw up his will. He intended to vote against the new clause.

said he thought the clause went too far. He was not opposed to the breaking of entail, but here, within a year of a man’s death, application might be made to the Court to break the entail, and one of the grounds given was that it was to “the advantage of the public generally.” He thought the words “the advantage of the public generally” should be deleted, and that a time limit should be fixed, say 25 years. He moved, in line 16, after “may ”, to insert “after the expiration of thirty years from the date of the death of the maker of the deed or of the testator of the will.”

said he thought this was a very far reaching clause. (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, there was a great deal in what the hon. member had said. He knew of a case of a wealthy farmer in the Aliwal North district who bequeathed his property, and the shares of the heirs became so small that it was impossible for them to get a livelihood. A Bill was introduced in the old Cape House, and it gave rise to a great deal of discussion, and Parliament eventually declined to take action. If this Bill made provision to meet cases of that kind, he thought it would be an excellent Bill, but it went very much further A man might leave a farm to his son, and before the relatives were out of mourning he could go to the Supreme Court and ask for a heavy mortgage to be put on it.

The Court would not grant it.

My hon. friend should not think that the judges in the future are always going to have the same regard for the sacredness of property. The age is rather in the opposite direction. Proceeding, he asked why the suggestion was not adopted as made in the Select Committee that the matter should first of all be sent to the Master to report, who would have all the persons interested before him and who could hear what they had to say? That would, he said, be some safeguard. If they passed this clause they would have the Courts filled with people anxious to set men’s wills aside, and they would have applications made where there was no necessity at all. The result would be that in many cases wills would not be worth the paper they were written on. He was, however, quite willing to confer with his hon. friend and meet a case which he thought should be met.

said he sympathised with the hon. member for Rustenburg, but as the clause stood it took away the right of people to bequeath their estates as they thought best. It would simply mean that in the future the Courts would have the full disposal of the estates of people. The clause as it stood was a general one. They should protect the rights of the people to deal with their own estates. Under this clause the Courts might be flooded with actions and he for one could not vote for it. He saw no chance of justifying it to his constituents, and it would be a great pity if it ever became law.

also held that the clause went too far.

said that the modern tendency the world over was to destroy entail, and in England one could not tie up property for an indefinite period. They must move with the times.

Why? (Laughter.)

Why? (Laughter.) Why —because we have aeroplanes and motorcars and Marconigrams—that is why we must move with the times. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said he thought that the time the protest should have been raised was when the report came up, for that afternoon they had opposition from all over the House. The Minister had said that applications might be made without necessity. But what had they got their Courts for? Surely they had enough confidence in their judges to know that three judges would not alter a will in any light-hearted fashion. Why should not three judges do so when it was shown that it was better that a will should be modified?

said the clause went too far, because immediately after the death of the person who made the will, the heir could go to the Court to have the will altered. Even the amendment did not go far enough, in the other direction.

said he hoped that the Committee would not lightly throw out this clause, and pointed to the fact that the Select Committee had given the matter most earnest consideration. The Minister might talk lightly about the matter, but the Select Committee thought the fullest protection would be afforded by three judges. Did any hon. member believe that three judges would lightly modify the terms of any will?

said there had been a great deal of unsatisfactory entailing in this country. (Cheers.) Properties had been so tied up that they were practically a burden to the people to whom they were left. (Cheers.) He thought it would be far better to submit cases to the careful consideration of three judges, rather than that people should be compelled to come to Parliament if they desired to break an entail.

said the clause had not been sufficiently considered, and urged that there was no intention to infringe upon the rights of testators; all that was intended was to give a person the right to appeal to Court where an estate bequeathed to him was placed under unnecessary restrictions. What they wished to do was to make an estate useful to these people to whom it was left. Often a man had a good piece of ground left to him, but it was also often so entailed that the owner could do nothing with it, with the result that the farms were not worked. That was what they wanted to change. That was not such a far-reaching provision as the hon. member for Prieska had made out. The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was not a practicable one, and it would be better in such cases to leave the decision entirely in the hands of the Court. The speaker proceeded to refer to the evidence given to the Select Committee on the extension of white labour, as showing the suffering caused by fidei commis stipulations. They must not be frightened at talk of what was going to happen immediately after death. The fidei commis habit had caused a great deal of poverty.

said there was some misapprehension about the effect of the clause, which did not go so far as many of the speakers thought. (Cheers.) In case of an appeal to the Court, it would have to be proved to the satisfaction of the judges that the proposed new arrangement would be to the benefit of all concerned. (Cheers.) The Court would not benefit the applicants at the expense of those still unborn. He thought that the clause as it stood was safe, and no great disadvantage would be done.

thought that in these matters there should be the right of an appeal to the Appeal Court.

expressed his concurrence with the views laid down by the Minister of Finance.

said the rights of property was always considered to be sacred rights.

This matter was of such great importance, and had such a far-reaching effect, that there ought to be special legislation, and that it should not be incorporated in a Bill dealing with the machinery for the management of estates. If they touched the matter of the rights of property and the rights of testament, they should bring in a special Act of Parliament to deal with it. A great deal had been said as to the disadvantage of entail. There were certain great advantages to be had from the entail of property. The Minister of Finance had argued that everybody was before the court, but as a matter of fact only those born were before the Court.

What about the curator ad litem?

proceeding, said that if they wished to deal with fidei commissa a special Bill ought to be introduced.

said his hon. friend (Mr. Krige) had thundered forth in the most eloquent terms about the sacred rights of property. This was not a clause to interfere with the sacred rights of property, but merely a clause to prevent the successors from suffering from the foolishness of their ancestors. It was absolute nonsense to talk as if the Courts were not just as well able to look after the sacred rights of property as Parliament. The judges were there to look after the interests of unborn heirs in an estate. He would point out that a very similar law was in existence to-day in the Free State (No. 23 of 1896). They had a simple procedure whereby an application was made to the Court, and if the Court did not recommend the removal of the fidei commissum the case could be taken to the Volksraad, and the Volksraad could by resolution determine on the matter. It was in the interest of the poor man that this provision should be made, because the rich man could afford to come to Parliament for redress.

said he was in favour of heirs who were seriously handicapped by the provisions of testaments in their favour having the right to appeal to the Court. He objected, however, to the clause as it stood now, as it was not made precisely clear therein in what sort of cases people were to be allowed to appeal to the Courts; the result of this would be, he held, that people would abuse the provision of the clause. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he could not vote for it.

Said that although he was in favour of something being done to limit the present system of entailing estates, the clause proposed in this Bill would only have the effect of one class of people being helped, namely, the creditors and the attorney, creditors in the first place. The hon. member referred to the position in the Free State, where, after careful inquiry by a Court, applications for the renewal of entails were referred to Parliament. Select Committees had inquired into many applications of this kind, and had found that in most cases such removal would only benefit the creditors. The speaker gave examples within his own experience when State Attorney, and said that in a matter of that kind, they must not trust too implicitly to the Court. The Court did not in fact look on such cases as cases on which they were accustomed to deliver judgment. There was not sufficient ground, therefore, why the Committee should accept such a clause as that proposed. Another objection he had against the present clause was that there was no guarantee whatever that every interested person would know about the proposed removal of an entail. He was in favour of some provision being accepted, such as appeared in the law of Holland, under which no entail could be made for more than five generations. He favoured it being laid down that no entail could be made for longer than three generations. (Hear, hear.) However, he thought this was a matter of too much importance to be dealt with in a Bill like this, and to be disposed of in a single clause. The whole testamentary question was involved, and although he had hoped that a Bill dealing with the matter would have been introduced this session, he recognised that it was too late in the session now to introduce such a Bill. The matter was a very involved and delicate one, and deserved the most careful consideration. It was a very far-reaching question, and the clause now proposed went too far. (Hear, hear.)

referred to the difficulties which were experienced by people who, as the result of entails, had an extremely small piece of land left to them, which they could do nothing with. He had been instructed to support this clause, and would do so.

said he was very much in favour of the principle underlying the clause, but it was hardly necessary for him to take any more cases, because so many had been mentioned. He hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not press his amendment. There was no necessity to put in a limitation for thirty years. To his mind the clause was safe as it stood.

said that when the clause was proposed in the Select Committee, of which he was chairman, he did not feel very strongly in favour of it, because it seemed to be introducing a matter foreign to the scope of the Bill. The voting was equal, and he voted for the clause, so that the House might have an opportunity of discussing it. He had since become convinced that the matter ought to be dealt with by order. They might safely delegate the power to the Supreme Court, for he thought it would take the strongest evidence to convince the judges that a man’s will ought to be set aside. He was inclined, in the first instance, to agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, but he now thought it was better that the clause should stand as it was, because the amendment limited the discretion of the judges. The judges might feel it their duty, in the interests of the persons concerned or in the public interest, to modify the bequest, but would be unable to do so until after a lapse of thirty years. On some points the Minister of Justice did not agree with him, but there had been no Cabinet crisis—(laughter)—and he would vote for the clause.

said the modification of the terms of a will would be also allowed by a Court of Justice when it was in the interest of the public, in which case not all of the persons interested would be heard. Rather than that, it would be better to propose a measure that no will should be lawful. He hoped the clause would be rejected.

said that here they were going from one extreme to the other. In the past, property had been tied up for generations; now they wished to legislate in such a fashion that as soon as a man was dead application could be made to the Court. People might bring actions out of pure mischief. He sympathised with the hon. member for Rustenburg, and that was why he had moved an amendment making the limit one generation. As a matter of fact, it was clear that the evils complained of only occurred after the first or second generations. (Hear, hear.) His amendment protected the will of a man, and dealt with the evils protested against.

suggested that the amendment should be altered to read that no alteration of the terms of a will should be permitted until 30 years after the death of the testator.

agreed.

said he hoped the Committee would not accept the clause even with the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He held that no person had a right to ask the Court of Appeal to have any restrictions imposed by a testator cancelled for his own sake. The only reason that would justify cancellation would be a reason on behalf of the State—State interests. Under this clause every usufructory would be entitled to come to the Court and show that it would be in his interests that certain restrictions should be cancelled.

Why entail?

Well, rather do away with entail altogether— (Labour cheers)—though I am not in favour of that. (Labour laughter.) Continuing, he said he thought a line should be drawn somewhere, and at least the testator should have an opportunity of knowing what might happen.

said he thought the Committee had been terrified by certain hon. members who had tried to show that the clause would have very far-reaching effects. The Prime Minister, if he understood him aright, instanced possible effects that could not possibly happen. They must remember that conditions change and that if a testator had known of such changed conditions he might probably have acted differently. As the hon. member for Smithfield had pointed out, every usufructory could go to the Court, but he did not think he would get all the sympathy that he wanted. Though the clause did not say that the Court must deal with a will when it was in the interests of all, that was what was meant. The Court would have to be satisfied that the removal of these restrictions would be in the interests of all the people concerned. The hon. member for Smithfield had said that it was best for Parliament to decide. Though he (the speaker) had only a short experience of Parliament, it seemed clear to him that it was not the best body to decide on such a matter, and that applicants would be better served by three judges.

moved the deletion of the word “or.” He thought that the clause should be re-drawn and redrafted. He moved, as an amendment, after “deed or will” to omit “or” and to insert “and.”

agreed as to the necessity of a clause of this kind, but held that as drafted at present it would give rise to abuse. Therefore, he was in favour of the clause being postponed. Something would have to be done in connection with fidei commis testaments, but they must be very prudent in doing it.

moved in sub-section (2), after the words “Court may,” to insert “upon giving those interested an opportunity of being heard and upon considering a report from the Master and if satisfied that it is to the advantage of all those who may then or thereafter be interested in the property.”

held that the question of testament was too delicate to be dealt with by means of one small clause. Matters of this kind should be carefully considered, and therefore he would vote neither for the clause nor for any of the amendments. If they were to do anything they should do so in a Bill specially dealing with the whole question, which could contain provisions dealing specially with cases such as those quoted by the hon. member for Rustenburg.

supported the clause, and argued that if the Court were allowed to deal with the whole question every detail would be carefully gone into and substantial justice done. There were hundreds of cases in which such a clause was required. It was not laid down in the clause that one person only could get the will altered, and it often happened that a will was so drafted that it did not express the intention of the testator. It was unfair that the heirs should be made to suffer in such cases. The Court would not act on the report of the Master, but where it appeared to be necessary the Court would authorise a small variation of the terms of a will when it was in the interests of all the parties concerned.

The amendments of Mr. Heatlie and Mr. Mentz were carried.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was negatived.

The clause as amended was then put and declared negatived.

put the proposed insertion on page 66, of the items—“after Act No. 18 of 1864 (The Native Succession Act, 1864), the whole; and “after Act No. 39 of 1887 (The Native Registered Voters’ Relief Act, 1887), Schedule A in so far as it includes Act No. 18 of 1864 and Ordinance No. 10 of 1864.”

moved the deletion of the foregoing.

The amendment was negatived.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS,

put the remainder of the proposed insertion by the Select Committee, on page 68, in the item “Act No. 25 of 1894, Cape of Good Hope ” not ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

This was negatived.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS,

put the remainder of the words proposed to be omitted by the Select Committee on page 68, in the item “Transvaal Proclamation No. 28 of 1902 ”, not ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

This also was negatived.

The schedule as amended was agreed to.

The remaining schedules were agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments; consideration of the amendments being set down for to-morrow.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the amendment be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked whether the Minister had got a schedule to this vote. He said that, considering the large amount the country was now spending on the erection of public buildings for the service, he thought they might hope to see this vote reduced by a large amount.

said he was sorry he had not the schedule. He might say that the intention of the Government was to vacate as many of the buildings they now hired for public use as possible. They intended to vacate a good many of the buildings in Pretoria, and, when the Supreme Court in Cape Town was completed, it was the intention of the Government to occupy the Supreme Court Buildings for offices, and give up some of the other buildings in Cape Town now on hire.

The sub-head was agreed to.

said he wished to raise the question of the rating of public property, because it seemed to him that, not only in Pretoria, concerning which he wanted to specially speak, but in many other parts, this exemption, or partial exemption, of Government property from the ordinary rating imposed a most serious hardship upon the ratepayers of the municipalities. Before the Select Committee which sat on railways the other day, it came out that, in Simon’s Town, four-fifths of the ratable property was exempted from rating, because it belonged to the Admiralty or the Government. That meant that, if they had to carry out repairs to the wharf, as they were called upon to do, the money would have to be found by one-fifth of the inhabitants. The same applied to Cape Town, and it certainly applied to Pretoria. He knew that hon. members thought that a great deal of money had been spent in Pretoria, but that money had involved Pretoria in very heavy responsibilities and liabilities, and the position at present was a very serious one. There was, he believed, nearly £3,000,000 worth of Government property, all told, in the Pretoria Municipality. In 1904 a rate of 2d. produced £61,000, and they were able to spend nearly £39,000 upon the streets and roads. In 1906 it produced £51,000, and they were able to spend nearly £31,000. For the year ending June, 1911, the assessment rate of 2d. in the £ produced £62,000, but they were only able to allocate £16,000 for streets. That was much less than they used to do, largely owing to the expenses they were put to in connection with the unrated Government property. In June, 1912, a rate of 2d. produced £63,000, but they had only £18,000 to spend. For the current year a rate of 2½d. was estimated to produce £80,000, but they had only £11,497 to spend, or one-third of what they used to have before the Government buildings were put up, and this large Government work was done. The erection of a number of Government buildings in a place and a terminal station, although at the moment it was an advantage to the people who were there, brought in the other population, and the population rose to a level practically establishing what might be considered a uniform condition throughout the country; but, after that, there were expenses which had to be borne, and the whole of the burden had to be carried by half the property. He did not claim by any means that this only applied to Pretoria. The exemption of Government and the railway property from the ordinary burdens that every ratepayer had got to pay was unsound. It went to this length that, where they were actually competing with private enterprise, they were exempt from the burdens that the private competitor had to bear. The result was that the Government system appeared to be cheap, it made it look cheap, but it was not cheap. The burden fell by accident, by a fluke, entirely beyond the control even of the Administrator of the particular department concerned, upon one selected class and one little group. The Government paid to Pretoria £13,500 as a grant-in-aid. Pretoria was compelled by Ordinance 34 of 1905 to give to the Government 100,000 gallons of water per day, free of charge. The Military also had an allowance, and 600,000 gallons had to be given to the Railway each day free of charge. He had raised the point in the hope that it would be taken up, and the principle be dealt with. It applied to all centres where Government work was concentrated, and it was an unsound system, concealing only the cost and not reducing it.

was understood to say that he did not agree with the hon. member for Pretoria, East, and asked if the hon. member expected the buildings to be rated at what they cost. To his mind, there had been too much of going to the Government for everything. Cape Town paid 3⅝d., as against Pretoria’s 2½d., and yet they did not grumble. To carry out what the hon. member had laid down would put an end to the erection of their fine Government buildings.

said an attempt was made in a Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, of which he was a member, to raise that question, with a view to getting some settlement, in connection with a Bill which came before that committee, but it was urged that it was hardly a question which could be introduced into that particular Bill. Proceeding, he said that the subject had frequently been discussed between the municipalities of South Africa and the Government. He had argued from both sides, as officer representing the Government, and afterwards as a member of a municipality which had a considerable amount of property belonging to the Government. That Municipality of Durban met the former Minister of Railways and Harbours, and some of the questions raised were amicably settled. He (the speaker) thought it would be a desirable thing if the Government would give an assurance that the subject would be discussed with those in authority and some basis of settlement arrived at. There was much to be said for both sides of the question, but it could not be profitably discussed in its details in that House at that time.

said that the law was in confusion about that matter. In some Provinces, for instance the Government paid rates for the dwellings occupied by officers, and in other Provinces did not. In Pretoria, the Government made a grant of £13,500. The whole thing ought to be gone into. They only sought at present to pay the rates which the Government was liable for under the law as it stood or under agreements which were in force. They were bound to discharge their statutory or conventional liabilities, and they proposed to do so during the current year. The matter of rating throughout the whole Union was receiving attention, and after discussion with the municipalities he thought the Government would be able to introduce a Bill next session, and the whole matter would be threshed out. In this circumstance he hoped the matter would not be discussed further on the present occasion.

expressed himself in disagreement with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and maintained that the Government should pay equally with private persons, and he urged that the system of rating should be based on sight values. In his opinion those sums should be assessed and treated more or less as a debt on the part of the Government.

said he rather supported the views of the hon. member for Pretoria East, though he did not contend that all the Government buildings should be rated, but there should be some contributions on a reasonable basis. He thought that the Government buildings being in a town counted as some compensation. He argued for some equal and uniform system throughout the country. In Cape Town they got between £8,000 and £9,000 from some of the Government properties which were rated, but there were in addition 2¾ millions worth of Government property which was not rated. He did not argue for heavy Government rates, but he thought the Government should bear its fair share of burdens. He pointed out that when the Central News Agency had charge of the railway bookstalls the rates were paid, but since the Government took them over they refused to pay. These book stalls were in absolute competition with people in the towns; he could not see that there was any difference in principle, and it was not right that there should be that differentiation. The same thing applied to the railway tea-shops and liquor bars, which were also in direct competition with the public.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he was glad that the hon. member for Pretoria East had drawn attention to the subject of municipalities and rates, because it gave him an opportunity of drawing attention to the case of Simon’s Town, where the Imperial Government owned the greater part of the land, and only contributed to the rates to the extent of £350 per annum. If some consideration were given to Pretoria, he thought that Simon’s Town should not be left out in the cold.

He was pleased to hear from the Minister that it was his intention to consider this matter and bring in legislation next year. If he brought in legislation he could not include Simon’s Town, because the Imperial Government was outside the pale of this Government, and, therefore, required special consideration. Sometime ago a high official from the Admiralty enquired into the matter, and considered that Simon’s Town was being badly treated, and that application for relief should be made to the Colonial Government, from the fact that the Naval Station was for the defence of South Africa as a whole. He hoped the Minister would give some consideration to Simon’s Town.

said that this was a burning question in Natal, and now that Pretoria was making a move the Natal towns might get something. Durban used to get a grant from the Natal Government, but that had since ceased. He hoped the Minister would carry out his promise and bring in legislation. He thought it should be retrospective.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head G, Grants to local authorities, £1,300,

asked for an explanation of the item.

replying to Mr. C. Henwood (Victoria County), said that the Government granted amounts to various towns, such as £200 to Johannesburg, £200 to Pretoria, £420 to Cape Town, and so on. Durban used to get a grant, but the agreement had unfortunately lapsed. However, the matter would be considered in connection with a new rating Bill, and the municipalities would be consulted before the matter was brought before the House.

asked under what circumstances these grants were made, and whether all municipalities were entitled to receive grants.

said that in all the principal towns the Government owned a considerable amount of property which was not liable for rates. The Government thought it only reasonable that it should contribute something towards these fire brigades.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head L, Repairs and renovations of Government buildings, £100,000,

said that not only was the amount very large, but it had been increased by £17,000.

Does this building come under this head? Continuing, he said that for several years members had endeavoured to point out that they did not breathe through their teeth. (Laughter.) The ventilation was so arranged that it came up the legs of their trousers. (Laughter.) Personally, he had not suffered as far as he knew, but there were several members who had become seriously ill owing to the ventilation arrangements. It was not to be wondered at that some of them suffered from rheumatism. He wanted to bring this to the notice of the Minister, although he did not think that it would serve any good purpose. He hoped the hon. Minister would support this and support the protest against this abominable arrangement of the sanitary conditions of the House. It was no secret that it was the cause of the illness of their former leader.

said he wanted to bring up another matter. That was the question of accommodation. There was no private place where an hon. member could call his own. At any club in Cape Town they had this privilege. The accommodation provided in the House for members was scandalously inadequate.

supported his hon. friend in everything he said. There was not a room where anyone could take his guests. He hoped the Government would see that this was remedied.

referred to the ventilation of the House, which he said was very extraordinary. He believed also that some new arrangement were necessary.

also agreed that the accommodation was inadequate and that the ventilation was dangerous. Proceeding, the hon. member asked whether there was any provision for the repair of the Magistrate’s Court in Johannesburg.

said a covered passage to the Parliament Buildings should be made.

said they had no accommodation for smoking. In the Natal Parliament they used to have this accommodation. He thought the Minister ought to follow the example of the Natal Parliament.

complained that members’ seats in Parliament were very uncomfortable and were more like school benches than anything else. Some of the members of this House were men of great age and deserved consideration. Members’ salaries were small enough and seeing the sacrifices members had to make, they should, at any rate, have comfortable seats. Members should have sufficient accommodation for their documents and for writing letters, and it ought to be possible to leave their seats without annoying other members.

referred to the bad condition of the magistrate’s court at Bothaville.

said that he did not think that the amount of £100,000 was too much to spend for these repairs. In regard to the ground surrounding the Magistrate’s Court at Johannesburg, he was informed that that was private ground, but he would make further inquiries. As to the House of Assembly, he sympathised a good deal with what had been said. He thought that the matter of ventilation ought to be looked into and improved, and during the recess he would see what could be done. With reference to the want of accommodation in the House for private members, this was a serious complaint, he had no doubt, but he supposed that the Cape Parliament, in voting the money for building this magnificent edifice, did not like to spend too much in case the House might happen to be removed to Pretoria. He was afraid that this £100,000 would not help them to put up many additional rooms, and it was difficult to see how committee rooms could be set aside by the Government. If he could do anything to bring about a change he would, but the matter was primarily in the hands of the Internal Arrangements Committee, the head of which was Mr. Speaker. In regard to the Magistrate’s residence at Porterville, he might point out that, as the Minister of Public Works, he could not come forward with any scheme to put up a building for either a Magistrate or any other public department, apart from the Public Works Department, unless the head of that department represented his case and convinced the Treasury that money should be voted.

said that the whole of the basement of this House, he believed, was at present unoccupied, and he would suggest that the Minister should consult with the Public Works Department, firstly, as to whether the billiard room could not be moved into the basement—(hear, hear)—and, secondly, whether a number of the rooms in the basement could not be conveniently turned into rooms where private members could find accommodation.

The sub-head was agreed to.

The vote was agreed to.

said that on sub-head (a) he had several amendments to propose. In the item “Paarl, Oenological Institute,” he moved to substitute “Elsenburg” for “Paarl.” The “Rustenburg Tobacco Warehouse ” was a clerical error, and he moved to substitute “students’ quarters £2,000.” He also wished to move the reduction of this vote by £7,500 by the deletion of the following items: South Coast Junction, Public Offices, £2,500; Graham’s Town Lunatic Asylum, £3,000; Port Alfred Lunatic Asylum, £600; and Warmbaths, alterations and improvements to Government baths, £1,400. Instead of spending £2,500 on public offices at South Coast Junction the intention was to ask the House to vote a similar sum on the Supplementary Estimates for a more urgent service, namely, warders’ quarters, Durban. In regard to the two items dealing with lunatic asylums, provision was now being made on the loan funds for £10,000, being a portion of £50,000 to be spent on the Graham’s Town Asylum. It had been decided by the Government to close down the Port Alfred Asylum. In regard to the Warmbaths item, repairs were now going on, but it had been decided to allow the alterations to stand over in the meantime.

moved to reduce the item of “House for Assistant Director of Veterinary Research, £2,000,” by £1,000. He said he would like to know why, when they were so short of residences for magistrates, it was necessary to erect a house for this officer at such a large cost. As to the South Coast Junction public offices he thought the Minister should have transferred the amount to Pinetown, for the purpose of providing a suitable magistrate’s Court and house in that place. He wished to know why it was necessary to spend £900 on quarters for the matron of the House of Correction in Cape Town. He saw that £1,400 was proposed to be spent in connecting the Bloemfontein Agricultural School dairy with a domestic water supply, and other improvements. They had £450 for erection of loose boxes at the Cedara Agricultural School. At the Potchefstroom Agricultural School it was proposed to spend £5,423 on additions to the Selborne Hall. One would have thought that, with the number of students that were being trained at that college, and the amount already spent on the Selborne Hall, it would have been possible to go on without spending this further sum of £5,423.

raised the question of the necessity for suitable resident magistrate’s Courts in Cape Town. The Minister of Justice had agreed that Cape Town was badly supplied in that direction. He (the speaker) had hoped that when the new Law Courts were put up the matter would be provided for, but the Courts were nearly up and there was no declaration with regard to that policy.

wanted to know how far negotiations had proceeded in connection with the building of police barracks in Cape Town, and asked why provision for Robben Island buildings had been missed out of the vote.

called attention to four items on the Estimates regarding magistrate’s residences and public offices in his constituency, and asked the hon. Minister to give some assurance that something would be done this year.

said it was something to see the amounts down in the Estimates for magistrates’ residences and public offices, even though nothing had been done. But Tsomo was not even mentioned. That was a very unhealthy place, and for years the magistrates’ residences there had been a corrugated iron building, with three or four-rooms. One could almost touch the roof, and it was so unhealthy that the magistrate’s wife and family had to clear out in the summer time in the mornings, and spend the rest of the day outside. Tsomo was an important district, and it was an absolute disgrace that any magistrate and his family should be housed in such a place, in comparison with which gaol would be healthy.

drew attention to several items where provision was made for agricultural schools, and said they had been long wanting an agricultural school in the Free State, and were disappointed to find that no provision was made. In the matter of public buildings, the Free State was behind the other Provinces, and one was forced to make comparisons, in view of the fact that £232,976 were being spent on public buildings, and of that amount only £11,320 were for buildings in the Free State.

said his was a case of “hope deferred maketh the heart sick.” He said that many years ago it was decided that they should have public buildings in the centre of Cathcart, and there was a vote for a site, but that was as far as they got. At the present time that site was let for stalls for the disposal of cattle and sheep. The magistrate’s office was a little old shop, and, as a representative of the Border district, he felt ashamed when he had to go into that little, low, dismal room. The name of the man who used to keep the place as a shop was still there. The postal officials were in a little, dismal room at the back. It was seldom that decent houses were to let in the Border district, and it was difficult to find a suitable residence for the magistrate.

said he was not going to make any appeals on behalf of his constituency, but he wanted to ask the hon. Minister to make perfectly certain that, if those contracts were carried out, arrangements should be made that all the workmen engaged should be paid a standard rate of wages. Unfortunately there was no fair-wages clause in connection with the department over which the Minister presided, but it was probably in his power, when he gave the contract out to the successful tenderers, that they should be forced to pay the standard rate of wages existing in the places where the work was to be done. In conclusion, he thought that the Government should make a good example to everybody else.

asked whether the Government was seriously going on with the buildings at Louis Trichardt? If they were not going on with them, he hoped the Department of Justice would be informed, as much depended on these buildings. It was no good going on voting the money if they were not going to spend it. He also pointed out that the report of the Public Accounts Committee stated that on 48 votes no money had been expended.

hoped the Minister would give a promise to the hon. member for Georgetown with regard to the fair wage, pointing out that he (the Minister) had spoken and voted in favour of it in Natal.

said he thought the cost of some magistrates’ residences far too high. In spite of the fact that in Johannesburg an excellent house could be built for £1,000 or £1,200. he did not see why such large sums should be spent in these small places. It was pure extravagance, and he thought it high time that this sort of arrant nonsense should be stopped.

replying to the hon. member for Umlazi, said that part of the money put down for Potchefstroom had already been spent, and that the whole amount was only a re-vote. The matron’s house at the House of Correction, Cape Town, was something that was urgently required. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, he said that while he knew magistrate’s offices at Cape Town were badly required, he could make no definite promise, but he would say that the whole question of public buildings was under consideration. If the hon. member for Woodstock would refer to the Supplementary Estimates he would find that £250,000 was to be spent in connection with the lunatic asylums. Replying to the hon. member for Faure-smith, he said that £10,000 was being spent at Glen, and the Irrigation Department had an amount of £4,000 on this vote. There were a number of other amounts that were being spent, and he did not think that the Free State were doing so badly. In reply to the hon. member for Border, he said there was £1,500 down for a new post office at Cathcart, and in reply to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg, he said that tenders were being called that month for the buildings at Louis Trichardt. Dealing with criticisms as to why money was not being spent, he said good reasons could be furnished why votes had not been expended. In reply to the hon. member for Georgetown, he said that in the other three Provinces there was in all Public Works Department contracts a condition calling for the standard rate of wage and the employment of white labour only. In the Cape it had not been considered expedient to insert the clause, and that in this Province there were really two standards, one for whites, and the other for blacks. In reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis, he said that they dealt with each case on its merits, and in some cases it was found necessary to spend more than £2,000 in the construction of a suitable building.

asked why money was being spent at Slangkop, seeing that the station was to be removed to Pretoria.

replied that the wireless telegraph station at Pretoria had nothing to do with that at. Slangkop.

said that too much had been made upon the differentiation between white and coloured labour. If a contractor got a contract, and he employed carpenters, bricklayers, and blacksmiths, whether they were white or coloured, they should be paid the standard rate of wages in the district. It was quite unnecessary for the coloured labourer to be brought into this matter at all. It would be bad policy to have two standards, one for the white and one for the coloured. They did not want provincialism. Let the fair wage be adopted in the Cape and elsewhere.

inquired whether they would be prepared to give a standard price to the farmer.

said, as far as he could recollect, there had been no distinction drawn between white or coloured labour. This fair wage clause had been in operation for many years.

said, at the present time, the Magistrate in Pine Town was carrying on his functions in a little ordinary dwelling-house. The accommodation was perfectly inadequate. He called the Minister’s attention to it.

said that if coloured competition reduced white wages, living would be made cheaper, and the farmers would suffer.

said the high wages for whites would mean good prices for farm produce.

asked for further particulars with reference to the proposal to delete the Warmbaths item. It was the only place in the Transvaal where they could go for a holiday. Something ought to be done, as not all of the visitors could make use of the baths.

said that at present there was a proposal before the Government to hand over these Warmbaths to the Provincial Administration, and it was undesirable at the present time to spend a large amount in the additions and alterations which were contemplated. He thought the probability was that the Warmbaths would be handed over to the Provincial Administration.

The amendments moved by the Minister of Public Works were agreed to.

asked whether the item of £3,000, Bloemfontein National Museum, included the guarantee given by the present curators in order to complete the furnishing? He said he would like an assurance from the Minister that this guarantee would be refunded to them.

said he did not know how this matter of the guarantee stood. All he knew was that a contract had been let for £3,000 to furnish the museum.

asked whether the Minister would give him an assurance that these gentlemen who rendered themselves personally liable for the guarantee, which was a liability really of the Government, would be held harmless?

complained that at the South African Museum in Cape Town the expense of alterations and furnishing had to be borne out of the ordinary grant along with working expenses, and he asked why there should be this differential treatment?

said that perhaps his hon. friend (Mr. J. W. Jagger) had made no demand for Cape Town. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, his hon. friend, as a good lawyer, would understand that it was impossible for him to undertake on the floor of the House that these gentlemen would be released from liability. He could only say that this money was asked for to pay for furniture and fittings which the Government had already ordered. If any gentleman had undertaken, the guarantee he had no doubt they would receive very sympathetic consideration.

said the point was that this was a liability undertaken in the interests of the Institution. He would like some assurance from the Government that they were not going to allow these men, who were performing a public duty in trying to see the Museum properly equipped, and who undertook a personal guarantee because they could not get a response from the Government, to be called upon to make good that guarantee.

said that they had made continual applications for further assistance for the Museum in Cape Town.

said that the Director of the South African Museum, in his report for 1912, urged that the institution should receive the same grant as the Pretoria Museum.

again urged that the Government should indemnify the gentlemen who had undertaken the liability in regard to the Bloemfontein Museum.

said he quite agreed that the Bloemfontein Museum was entitled to fair treatment for what it had done for so many years without getting any assistance worth speaking of. This amount of £5,000 was put on the Estimates to make a beginning in the furnishing of the new building. When tenders were called, it was found that £3,000 would only furnish about three or four out of the eleven rooms in the building. The facts brought to the notice of the House by the hon. member would, he was sure, be taken into consideration by the Government. As the hon. member would see, an amount of £3,000 had been placed on the Estimates towards the furnishing of this museum.

said he was not satisfied. The cases had to be airtight. There was no money on the Estimates, and the cases were ordered, and in order not to wreck the whole scheme, those persons guaranteed the fund. Now the hon. Minister said they must leave the matter to the sympathetic consideration of the Government. The best proof he (the speaker) had got for his case was the statement of the hon. Minister that the Government was responsible. It was a matter of honour, and they should not let private people pay for a liability which was that of the Government.

said that £4,000 for the S.A. Museum was not sufficient.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (d), Bridges,

asked for information concerning a bridge over the Vaal River.

said the matter was receiving consideration.

The sub-head was agreed to.

moved that the items be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the reduction of the salary of the Minister of the Interior by £1,000 as a protest against the administration of the Public Health, being in his Department. The hon. member said that he had brought this matter forward during the past two sessions, and intended to do so until justice was done to that Department. He had intended bringing up the matter during the Budget debate, but that degenerated into wrangling and recriminating abuse, and he had brought it forward on the present occasion so that hon. members would have a better opportunity of hearing his views. Proceeding, he said that when the matter of public health was in the hands of the Minister of Finance they did not expect much from him because they knew that he did not hold the medical profession in high esteem. The hon. member went on to deal briefly with diseases which were prevalent in the country, and which called for immediate attention. These, he urged, should be dealt with from the national standpoint. There was miner’s phthisis. He mentioned that first because so many lives had been sacrificed by that disease. Yet it was a disease which was preventable, and if they had a department of public health that disease would have been dealt with in much more vigorous and satisfactory way long before it had reached its present state. Then there was tuberculosis, on which the Commission was at present reporting. Before the report on miners’ phthisis was published he had said it would confirm certain statements which he had made, and that prediction was unfortunately fulfilled. He made bold to say that when this Commission reported upon tuberculosis the same prediction would hold good. Despite our favourable climate, we had a mortality from that disease equal to England, and he claimed that if there had been a Public Health Department the disease would not have got the hold that it had got in this country. Proceeding, he said that in the northern parts of the Transvaal, in the Waterberg district, for instance, at least 50 per cent. of the people were affected with a loathsome disease, and the Government had done nothing to stop it, though it was true some subsidies had been made to mission stations, but it was a disease which should be treated from a national standpoint, and it should be treated rigorously if they were to keep it within bounds. Every investigation into public health showed that it was in a more deplorable state than even they thought of. Proceeding, he said it was a shock to him and to every member of the House to hear the reports recently submitted by the Minister for Native Affairs concerning the mortality among the natives in the mines, and he was of opinion that if the Department of Public Health had had the opportunity of keeping statistics that would have been stopped at a much earlier stage. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg had asked that statistics should be framed with regard to the mortality of natives going from the mines into his district. That was a matter which should be under the supervision of the Medical Officer of Health.

Then there was the question of medical research, with regard to which other countries had recognised responsibility. In this country enormous sums of money had been spent in equipping laboratories for the investigation of cattle diseases, but nothing had been done towards the investigation of human diseases. It was true that a medical research institute was being organised in Johannesburg, but they had to wait for that until the Government had collaborated with the people of the mining industry in the Transvaal. Continuing, the hon. member said that in some parts: of the low country malarial fever was very prevalent. The medical research institute should investigate that disease, for he was confident that by a proper medical research department the low country could be made as healthy to live in as any other part of the country. He could multiply those different diseases prevailing in the country, but he would content himself with what he had pointed out, and proceed with what he considered to be the remedy for that condition of affairs. In doing so he was not going to advocate centralisation, nor did he seek to take away from any local authorities any of their powers to act, but he would say there ought to be a central controlling body governing public health in this country, and not, as they had here, a medical officer placed among the under secretaries at a salary of £1,200 per annum. That he considered most inadequate. In this country they must have a man with the highest attainments, and who would have the confidence of the people, and to pay such a man £1,200 to be Chief Medical Officer of the Union was a disgrace. There were some matters which were quite beyond the powers of local authorities, and that was one reason why he advocated the creation of a Public Health Department. It might mean a little more expense in the administration of that department, but he maintained it would be cheap at any cost, because the health of the people was the greatest asset any country could possess.

said he had obtained a circular issued by the Government, and dated April 4, which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. The hon. member proceeded to read the paragraph which he said he objected to, but was to a great extent inaudible. The purport of it was understood to be that any attempt by an officer of the Civil Service to secure the intervention by a member of Parliament or other influential individual in any matter of promotion, etc., was strictly forbidden. The hon. member proceeded to say that he wanted to know whether the Minister knew about this circular, and whether those recommendations by the Civil Service Commission had been approved of by the Government. Last year an attempt was made to introduce that very principle into the Civil Service Act, but the House refused to allow it. This circular went a little too far. Civil Servants had many grievances, and although he did not believe in encouraging them, he knew that many officers had real grievances, and although they had tried to obtain satisfaction from their superiors, they had been unsuccessful. He did not see why civil servants should not be able to approach their local members. He wished to know whether the Government was prepared to withdraw that circular.

said he was very glad that the hon. member for Somerset had called the attention of the Minister to the circular, because he had been handed a copy also. He wanted to call the attention of the Minister to the fact that there were three sub-sections in the Public Service Act on which, last year, they had long discussions. He wanted to submit to the Minister that the paragraph in the circular which had been read to the House went very much further than did even those sub-sections. Civil Servants were forbidden by it to communicate on a matter relative to the service with a member representing their part of the country. He thought that every member of the committee would agree that to deprive a member of the Civil Service of the right of going to his member in order to secure justice would be depriving him of a right which belonged to him. Whether that was rightly or wrongly used would depend upon the individual concerned. The civil servant had just as much right to the protection of Parliament and the services of his member in order to secure him justice as any other citizen of the Union. He hoped that the Government would withdraw this circular, and that nothing should be done to restrict these men in this direction.

said that this circular seemed to have been widely circulated, for he had also received a copy of it. He would point out, however, that the preamble of the circular did not bear out the conclusions that were arrived at. The preamble of the circular was reasonable, but only sub-section 2 had any relation to the preamble. The third clause, to which other hon. members had drawn attention, was quite unjustified. Every member of the Civil Service who came to him or any other member of that House in connection with a grievance was always advised to try and get his wrongs redressed through the Usual departmental channel. Sometimes that could not be done, and then the only chance the man had was through the member of Parliament who represented him. It was an interference with the rights of public servants, and he hoped that that portion of the circular to which attention had been called would be withdrawn.

thought it was rather hard on clerks who were unfairly treated by their superiors that they should not be allowed to appeal to the Minister, nor to their member of Parliament. There were cases in which such clerks who had wanted to appeal had been dismissed, and people from oversea appointed in their stead. Every clerk, he emphasised, should have the right to appeal to the Minister, and head officials had no right to suppress complaints.

replying to the hon. member for Boksburg, agreed that, so far as public health was concerned, there were many matters that required attention, but pointed out that there was a Public Health Department in existence at the present time. Proceeding, the hon. member said they were between the devil and the deep sea, because they had decided to give the Commission a fair trial, and now they did not want to do that.

was understood to say that he hoped the Minister would put the Public Health Department upon a proper basis.

who was practically inaudible, was understood to complain that a man named H. D. Conradie had been declared to be cured from leprosy six months ago, and was still detained on Robben Island at his own cost, and was suffering from poverty. The man had been on the island for nine years, and the speaker would be glad if the Minister would inquire into the matter.

said that he thought one point had been overlooked by his hon. friend (Dr. MacNeillie), and a point that he had intended to emphasise. What was wanted apparently in the matter of the Public Health Department was a responsible head of the department, in the same sense as there were responsible heads of all the other departments of the Union.

said he regretted that the Minister had not seen his way to withdraw the regulation recently issued, debarring Civil Servants from appealing to their member of Parliament if they thought they had not been fairly treated. They knew how difficult it was for Civil Servants to get redress by going through the proper channel, and they also knew that a large number of grievances were rectified only because they were brought directly to the notice of the Minister. These men were, first of all, citizens and taxpayers of the country, and as such they ought to have a full right of appeal to their members of Parliament. Had it been the intention of the House that these men should be deprived of their right of appeal to their members, he thought it would have been in the Public Service Act. He regretted that the Minister had not seen his way clear during this session to introduce the Electoral Law Bill, so as to secure uniformity throughout the Union. In the Transvaal and Free State they had manhood suffrage, but in Natal they had a property qualification, which enabled a man to have 17 votes in the Province. There were men at the present time who had as many as from 6 to 12 votes. In that House they wanted, not property, but human beings to be represented. He pleaded for a reform of the hours of polling, so as to give workingmen a better opportunity of exercising the franchise. He would like the Minister to draft a Bill, or, if a Bill was not necessary, to give instructions to whoever was responsible to extend the polling hours from 4 o’ clock to 8 o’ clock. He appealed to the Minister to remove the restrictions placed on the working-men of Natal.

said he wanted to assure the hon. member for Boksburg that he was wrong in thinking there was no responsible head. The responsible head was the head of the department, and under him was the Medical Officer of Health for the Union. In regard to the hon. member for Beaufort West, the matter he referred to was under investigation. In reply to the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, he could not promise to do anything in regard to the electoral laws this session, but he could promise that the matter he referred to would be attended to. He moved, on page 108, under item “Assistant Medical Officers of Health ” to omit the scale of salary “£800—25—£900 ” and to substitute “1. £800 —25—£950; 2. £650—25—£800”

said he wanted again to return to the charge of this circular. He wanted the Minister to reconsider the position. He wanted to point out how easily one crime led to another. In the House the Government wanted to put a clause in the Public Service Act. Now, by a stroke of the pen, they deprived the Civil Servant of the right to look upon a member of Parliament as a man representing him—a privilege possessed by every other man in this country.

said he wanted the Minister to assure him that the question of the polling hours would be dealt with by issuing an order to the magistrates.

said the matter was fixed by statute so that unless they had legislation it could not be dealt with.

The amendment proposed by Dr. MacNeillie was negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

moved a reduction of the Immigration Officer’s salary for the purpose of drawing the Minister’s attention to certain points raised by members of the Jewish Board of Deputies at a recent interview. The first point they raised was whether or not the Government was prepared, if the Board appointed an official at its own cost to meet any immigrants of the Jewish faith, to grant facilities to this official. The second point was whether the Minister would consider the question of improving the accommodation at the Detention Depot. Inter alia, Mr. Alexander, in pointing out that the conditions at present were bad, referred to the enormous charges, amounting in some cases to more than £1 a day, that were made. He thought that the charge should be made more reasonable. The third point was whether immigrants could not be examined at the port of embarkation. In the days of Cape Colony such an arrangement was in force at the Agent-General’s office. If such a, system were carried out the cost of administration would be lessened. The fourth point was the question of a temporary permit—as to whether a man who gave adequate security could not be supplied with a temporary permit instead of being detained in the Detention Depot. Referring to the Chief Immigration Officer, Mr. Alexander pointed out that in bringing these matters forward he was not animated by personal motives; as a matter of fact, he did not know the official personally. But Durban members would bear out the fact that when the Chief Immigration Officer was removed to that port there was a tremendous amount of turmoil, and public protest meetings were held in connection with the way the Act was administered. During the time the officer was in Durban one heard from expressions here that the public was satisfied with what was going on here. A little tact; a little sympathy was all that was wanted.

referred to the high salaries paid in this Department, and said that, seeing there was a prohibition of Asiatic immigrants, the officials appeared to be unnecessary.

said that from what he had seen of the immigration officer he did his business without fear or favour, and was a very capable official. It would be very much easier for him to pass people instead of carrying out the law. He quite understood the hon. members’ grievances who thought something harsh was being done, but he only carried out his duties.

said that the late immigration officer at Durban did just as good work as the present officer.

disliked the expression used by the Minister, which he characterised as most unfortunate.

The sub-heads were agreed to.

referred to the item of £10,000 for assisted immigration and repatriation of destitute Europeans, and asked whether provision was made to repatriate the wives and families of men here who had been sent Home as a result of ill-health and whose husbands were unable to bring them back.

on the sub-head Registration of Parliamentary voters, urged that people entrusted with such registration tin unhealthy parts of the country, where horse-sickness was prevalent, should be paid higher remuneration than those in other parts.

moved in the following now item: Kirstenbosch, annual grant £1,000, special grant £2,500.

The new item was agreed to.

asked for an explanation of the increase of the item of registration of voters and Parliamentary election expenses from £3,000 to £18,000.

said that the increase was entirely owing to the new registration in the Cape Province. As to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Rustenburg, he would give the matter his attention. The question mentioned by the hon. member for Springs was one which he thought it would be very difficult to deal with.

said that in the absence of the new Electoral Law, a good deal of the money voted for the registration of voters was practically wasted. He thought that steps should be taken with a view to amending the existing anomalies with regard to registration.

said that the method now in vogue in Natal, and especially in Durban, in regard to the registration of voters was very unsatisfactory. It was highly desirable that there should be continuous registration in the Union. As to the grant of £6,000 to Pretoria Zoological Gardens, he thought it would be well if grants were made as well to other institutions of a similar character. He drew attention to the fact that they had a growing and progressive zoo at Durban.

The hon. member must confine himself to Pretoria.

proceeding, said that the Pretoria Zoo received very favourable treatment. He would like the Minister to remember the Durban Zoo.

The sub-heads were agreed to.

On vote No. 17. “Public Health Department ”, £111,991.

moved: On page 114, under item “Government analysts, bacteriologists and pathologists” to omit “2 at £700—25— £800” and to substitute “1. £700—25— £850: £700—25—£800”.

Agreed to.

The vote, as amended, was agreed to.

asked the Minister what decision the Government had come to regarding Robben Island and what amount was being spent on putting up more suitable buildings there.

called the attention of the Minister to the sad death of a French lady on the slopes of Table Mountain. It seemed that she had been wandering about practically out of her mind. He wanted to point out that the Government should provide some place, even a police cell —

The matter does not come under this vote.

complained that no reports of asylums had been circulated among members. As the close watching of asylums had been made manifest to the House he thought that these reports should be printed.

again sought to raise the question of Madame Heurant’s death.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

But—

The hon. member must confine himself to Valkenberg—

I will. If there had been accommodation at —

The hon. member is attempting to evade my ruling.

Oh, very well, then.

said he wished to put a question regarding Robben Island.

said it would be out of order.

drew attention to the small amount allotted to Natal for leper asylums.

referred to overcrowding at Emjanyana Asylum, and said that he thought some fresh spot should be chosen for any new asylum, even if the original asylum were not moved. The Minister, perhaps, did know of any available spot for an asylum. He would tell the Government that there was a splendid site for a leper asylum at the mouth of the Kei River. The Europeans of the district near Emjanyana would be glad to see the asylum removed to the coast.

The vote was agreed to.

moved to report progress.

put the question that progress be reported and declared that the Noes had it.

called for a division at 11.35 p.m., which was taken with the following result:

Ayes—18.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Sampson, Henry William

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Emile Nathan and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—39.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederic Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christian

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The motion was therefore, negatived.

said he wished to call attention to what, in his opinion, was an illegal act in regard to the Commission in their recommendation to the Minister of the Interior that a certain circular should be issued to the various heads of the Departments.

asked if members of the Civil Service Commission carried pension rights.

replied that two of the members having been in the Civil Service, retained pension rights.

The vote was agreed to.

moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

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